Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

BOURNEMOUTH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

UTTOXETER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Helicopter Services

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether the Birmingham-London helicopter service, to be inaugurated on 1st June, 1951, is to be regarded as an experimental and precursor service; how far plans are developed for linking Birmingham by helicopter service with Ringway, Manchester, and Speke, Liverpool; and when these further helicopter services will be introduced.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): The Birmingham-London helicopter service will be primarily an experiment in single-engined helicopter operation, designed to gain the operational and commercial experience necessary for the successful economic development of the twin-engined helicopter. The service will also help to meet a public demand in the Midlands for air connections with Northolt and London Airports. No plans

have been made for extending the service from Birmingham to Manchester and Liverpool.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the triangle, Birmingham-Liverpool-Manchester, represents ideal routing for helicopter services; and, in view of the established airfields at these cities, can consideration be given to the inauguration of such a service as an adjunct to the Birmingham-London service?

Mr. Beswick: Consideration could be given to that suggestion, but I do not think it is possible within the present budget with this particular aircraft.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the hon. Gentleman consider, at a later date no doubt, the inclusion of a service not only from London to the centre of Birmingham but also to the B.I.F. engineering section at Castle Bromwich for the economy of time of overseas buyers?

Mr. Beswick: I will certainly give consideration to that.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether there are any technical or economic obstacles to the creation of helicopter landing grounds, erected as superstructures to such main railway stations as New Street or Snow Hill in Birmingham, or St. Pancras or Victoria in London, in order to obviate motor omnibus journeys from the centre of such cities as Birmingham and London to the present flying fields and consequent delays for passengers.

Mr. Beswick: Without accepting the premise that the use for the helicopter mentioned in the last part of the Question would be economic or operationally feasible, we do not rule out the erection of superstructures over main railway stations. There are, however, constructional and other practical difficulties in adapting railway stations, and in this context we are bound to bear in mind the economic claims of other types of elevated site for helicopter landing grounds.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, from a commercial point of view, helicopter internal and feeder services can hardly succeed in this country unless we can obviate the long delays


involved in getting passengers from the centres of cities to the established airfields? Can the hon. Gentleman not use the waiting period for the development of helicopter twin-rotors to plan out these stations?

Mr. Beswick: That is a problem which is engaging our attention.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In connection with the provision of superstructures in London, will my hon. Friend give priority to a superstructure over Charing Cross station, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) recently? Will he also consult the Home Secretary with a view to exploring the possibility of using helicopter stations in connection with the Civil Defence organisation?

Mr. Bossom: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much cheaper to put a superstructure over a railway station than to buy property in order to make a landing ground?

Mr. Beswick: There are a number of arguments about the matter, and various suggestions are now being considered, including the scheme to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the development of a twin-engined helicopter, he will now state the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the development of helicopter services between provincial cities in the United Kingdom, and London and certain main provincial cities.

Mr. Beswick: Only one type of twin-engined helicopter is at present being built in the United Kingdom, and this has not yet flown. The policy of His Majesty's Government for the development of helicopter services is under consideration in the light of the recommendations of the First Report of the Inter-Departmental Helicopter Committee.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that opposition from British Railways, owing to the possibility of their losing fare paying passengers, will not be allowed to impede or hinder this essential helicopter development?

Mr. Beswick: That seems to come within the category of hypothetical questions.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the favourable reports received about the progress of the twin-engined helicopter, the Bristol 173, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that steps are now being taken so that when it becomes a practical proposition there will be no undue delay in getting it into operation?

Mr. Beswick: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: Following upon what the hon. Member has just said, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, so that any delay may be obviated, experiments for helicopter services are being carried out between islands as well as between centres such as London and Birmingham?

Mr. Beswick: No experiments are being carried out specifically between islands, although we have carried out experiments in other parts of the country besides these two main cities.

B.O.A.C. Employees (Redundancy)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if, in the course of his investigation held recently into the redundancy of two ex-employees who gave information to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, when he obtained statements from British Overseas Airways Corporation, and from his Departmental officials, he at the same time took similar detailed statements from the two ex-employees of British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Beswick: No, Sir.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend did not obtain information direct from the two ex-employees, as he did from officials of his Department and of the Corporation, can he really stand by his statement made in the House that a reasonable attempt has been made to see that justice has been done; and as an indication of his desire to see fair play in this matter would he set up an independent investigation into the whole thing as distinct from making his Departmental inquiries?

Mr. Beswick: The answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir," and the answer to the first part is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Cooper: In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and as I feel that no real attempt has been made to see that justice has been done in this case, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The only wording that is correct in these circumstances is: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. I think that I might point that out, because this has often been put wrongly. It is very unfair, supposing an hon. Member makes a lot of charges against a Minister and then says "I will raise the matter on the Adjournment," because the Minister then has no chance of answering the charges. It never has been the practice to do otherwise than say, "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will raise the matter on the Adjournment." That is the correct and right way of doing it.

Mr. Beswick: In the circumstances, would it be in order if I were to reply, although it is strictly—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: In view of my Ruling, I think that it would be now in order.

Mr. Beswick: Although it is strictly correct to say that I did not interview these men at the time, I did interview one of the men on the previous occasion, when the hon. Gentleman saw me about this matter. The second man did not wish to put anything before me.

Airway Control

Mr. Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what consideration has been given to the proposal that airway control shall be operated in clear weather, as well as during conditions of Instrument Flight Rules, in view of the mid-air collisions that have occurred in clear weather due to the glare from the sun; and if he will consider altering his recent regulations accordingly.

Mr. Beswick: The feasibility of introducing full airway control in V.F.R. conditions was exhaustively considered, when

the airways system was under discussion with all concerned, and for many reasons was not adopted. Compulsory air traffic control, irrespective of weather conditions, has, however, been introduced round the busier airports in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Cooper: In the light of experience that has recently come before my hon. Friend, could he give some consideration to the suggestion that it would be in the interests of safety to have these same regulations applying during conditions of good visibility as apply in conditions of bad visibility?

Mr. Beswick: No fresh evidence has come before my Department, but clearly this is a matter which we shall watch very carefully, and if necessary modifications will be made.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Are the Department experimenting with radar warning equipment in order to avoid any possible trouble, as envisaged in the Question?

Mr. Beswick: I should require notice of that.

Bristol Brabazon Aircraft

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what proposals have been made, or are contemplated, by British European Airways for the taking over of the Bristol Brabazon aircraft for operation between London and Paris.

Mr. Beswick: British European Airways Corporation have tentatively suggested that the Brabazon might be operated by them on routes of high traffic density. However, I am informed that a considerable amount of development work has still to be done before the first aircraft could be used on commercial services.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman allow any commercial concerns that wish to operate the aircraft on the service for which it was designed, the Transatlantic service, to have a reasonable chance of first option on the aircraft before anybody uses it for some totally different purpose?

Mr. Beswick: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Raw Material Exports

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what powers are possessed by the Allied High Commission to prevent the export of goods of strategic value from Western Germany to China.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to prevent the export of strategic raw materials from Western Germany to the Soviet zone.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Under the terms of the Revised Occupation Statute the Allied High Commission has full powers to prevent the export of goods of strategic value from Western Germany to China. The export of strategic materials from Western Germany to the Soviet zone is controlled through the medium of a centralised licensing system and by customs examination at the interzonal border, the German agencies concerned operating under policy direction from the Allied High Commission.

Mr. Winterbottom: Have the High Commission power to control the export of materials from satellite countries through the port of Hamburg?

Mr. Morrison: That is a somewhat different question. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put it down I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that a great deal of steel has been exported from Western Germany to the Soviet zone; and are any steps being taken to stop this?

Mr. Morrison: We are tightening up the machinery, which I hope will have good results.

Nazi Party

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the re-emergence of the Nazis in Germany, as the Socialist Reich Party, which polled nearly a quarter of a million votes in the Lower Saxony elections.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the reappearance of the Nazi Party in Germany and the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to this development.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the re-emergence of the Nazi Party in Western Germany.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have noted with some concern the fact that the Socialist Reich Party, which is an organisation of definite neo-Nazi tendencies, polled over a quarter of a million votes in the provincial elections in Lower Saxony on 6th May. The Federal German Government and the Occupying Powers are fully alive to the dangers involved in this development. The Federal Government have announced their intention to take action to have the party declared unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court in accordance with the Basic Law, and thus to deprive it of the protection of that constitution which it seeks to undermine. Steps are being taken to set up the Constitutional Court as soon as possible.
I spoke to the Federal Chancellor on this question during my recent visit to Germany, and I have no reason to believe that the democratically elected Government of the Federal Republic are not fully capable of dealing with any internal threat to the constitutional order. However, we must not exaggerate the importance of this local success by a neo-Nazi group and must exercise a sense of proportion.

Dr. King: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that at the week-end Eberhard Stern, one of Remer's associates in the new Nazi gang, said of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, "Mr. Churchill is the greatest war criminal in the world"? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that while statements like that go unpunished in Germany we still have not beaten the Fascism we fought the last war to destroy?

Mr. Morrison: I think the answer I have given is, in principle, sound from my hon. Friend's point of view, and I made that view very clear when I was in Germany. On the other hand, we must keep a sense of proportion in the matter, and, therefore, conduct ourselves accordingly.

Brigadier Medlicott: Contrary to what was stated in the Minister's first reply, has not experience shown that the democratic forces in Germany are incapable of dealing with this particular menace and that, to enable them to do so, it is essential for them to have outside assistance from us?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that would be a fair assessment. I would much sooner the German authorities themselves dealt with it than that we should, because I think, provided they take the proper action—as I am disposed to think they will—it would be more effective than if foreign Powers intervened.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend realise that even bad ideas cannot be abolished by declaring them to be unconstitutional? Further, does he realise that the policy of re-arming Germany on the basis that without doing so Western civilisation cannot be defended from the Communists is not the best way of convincing Germans that Hitler was wrong?

Mr. Morrison: That is a good effort. I could make an effective reply to my hon. Friend, but it would take so long that I am afraid Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order.

Mr. Pickthorn: With reference to the original reply, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the name of any Socialist Party which has not neo-Nazi tendencies?

Mr. Morrison: That is a very poor effort. The hon. Gentleman need go no further than the British Labour Party.

Mr. John Hynd: Does not the Minister agree that if the German authorities are to cope with any menacing situation that might arise from the existence of such parties in Germany, they are in an extremely invidious position through having as their only protection foreign occupation troops? Will he not consider the matter from that angle and discuss with the German authorities and our Allies the possibility of providing some German protection?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. His supplementary is, in part, a corrective to the tendentious question of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)

Foreign Secretary's Visit

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention to make a statement on the results of his recent visit to Germany.

Mr. H. Morrison: I undertook my recent visit to Germany with the idea of familiarising myself with the present situation and with current problems in that country. I wished also to make personal contact with the Federal Chancellor and other prominent figures in German public life, including the leader of the Social Democratic Party and representatives of the trades unions.
I also carried with me an invitation from His Majesty's Government to Dr. Adenauer to visit the United Kingdom during the summer, which I am glad to say he has accepted. I am convinced that this direct contact with German leaders and problems will be of great value to me in the future discharge of my duties as Foreign Secretary.

Youth Festival

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent young people from attending the Communist-inspired Youth Festival, to be held in Berlin from 5th to 19th August.

Mr. H. Morrison: So far as British youth are concerned I feel most reluctant to interfere with their freedom of action in such a matter. We can rely on their good sense. They are not easily duped, and some in fact have taken the sensible precaution of consulting the Foreign Office. Nevertheless, we have to consider the purpose of this Festival. It is sponsored by the Communist-controlled youth organisations, the World Federation of Democratic Youth and the International Union of Students, which are in the nature of Fifth Column bodies. Its avowed aim is to support the campaign for peace on Soviet terms. I have therefore agreed to consultations between the three Western High Commissioners in Germany on ways and means of preventing this exploitation of young people to serve the aims of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Baker White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is the intention of


the Communist-controlled Festival Committee to charter the Polish ship "Batory" and carry them direct to Gdynia so that they do not pass through the Western zone?

Mr. Morrison: That may be so, but on the face of it it does not sound as if I can do anything about it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is this proposal to make the Iron Curtain a two-way affair intended to be limited to this particular instance, or is it to become the general policy of the Government?

Mr. Morrison: We must consider each case on its merits, but I see no reason why we should be parties to a policy which assists in the development and influence of Fifth Column activities.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to be consistent in this matter and explain to the House how it came about that passports were issued to leading members of the Communist Party to confer with the Communists in Peking some time ago?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Member had better put that down.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (BRITISH PROPERTY)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia regarding the security of British properties in that country.

Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Ambassador at Djakarta is in constant touch with the Indonesian Government and with the local representatives of the British plantation companies regarding security on the estates. He reports that, although the state of internal security is still far from satisfactory, this is not due to lack of effort on the part of the Government. I am satisfied that this is, in fact, the case and that the Indonesian Government have taken and are continuing to take such measures as are within their power to break up the armed gangs which have been terrorising certain districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTIC (ARGENTINE BASES)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the official announcement by the Argentine Government that Argentina has established a fifth naval base in the Antarctic, at Punta Proa in Graham Land; and what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government to resist this further invasion of British territory.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have protested locally and through the diplomatic channel. As regards the general policy of His Majesty's Government towards this dispute, I have nothing to add to the statement made on 23rd April.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear that the Government are establishing an extremely dangerous precedent by their mishandling of this matter; and is it any wonder that the Government's failure to react strongly to this challenge has been a direct invitation to other nations to challenge us in vital matters in other parts of the world?

Mr. Morrison: This is a most remarkable series of assertions, assumptions and propaganda statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That is what I am doing. Even a Minister is entitled to be heard. His Majesty's Government have asserted and are maintaining the rights of this country.

Sir Herbert Williams: When the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary during the war, if somebody had invaded his house, would he not have chucked them out? Why should he not do the same with the Argentine who are improperly occupying British territory?

Mr. Morrison: When I was Home Secretary I claimed no more rights for myself than for any other citizen.

Captain Ryder: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the terms of the protest were, and how they were delivered locally?

Mr. Morrison: Not without notice.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend resist these continual efforts on the part of the Opposition to start more wars?

Brigadier Medlicott: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-TURKISH RELATIONS

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Turkish relations, with particular reference to economic co-operation and defence.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the answer is inevitably long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Watkinson: In view of Turkey's great value as an outlying bastion of Western defence, would the Foreign Secretary at least give the House an undertaking that we are doing all we can to bring Turkey into association with us in the defence of Western Union and of the Middle East?

Mr. Morrison: That matter is under consideration. It is a question of what is the best way to do it. I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer that in spirit I agree with what he has said.

Brigadier Head: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that in this matter time is of the utmost value?

Mr. Morrison: I will bear that in mind.

Following is the answer:

Economic relations between Turkey and the United Kingdom are governed directly by the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1930, as amended by the Trade and Payments Agreement between the two governments of 1940. Furthermore, both countries are members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation and of the European Payments Union, and are contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They co-operate fully within these organisations, and a mutually satisfactory agreement on tariffs has recently been concluded between the United Kingdom and Turkey.

The defence of Turkey is a matter of vital concern to His Majesty's Government, and our two countries already have close ties in the defence field. First, as Turkey's ally, the United Kingdom is bound by the Anglo-Turkish Treaty of 1939, to go to her assistance

if she is attacked. Secondly, the United Kingdom is, by a decision of the North Atlantic Council, associated with Turkey in such aspects of N.A.T.O. military planning as concern the defence of the Mediterranean. Thirdly, by reason of her concern with defence in the Middle East, the United Kingdom has a special interest in collaborating with Turkey in the defence of that area. As the House will recall, General Robertson, the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces, recently visited Turkey and had conversations with the Turkish General Staff for that purpose.

There is now a general feeling in Turkey, and in some other quarters, that existing defence arrangements are not enough and that there is need for Turkey to receive a further guarantee of her security and to be associated more closely than she is at present with the defence of the West. His Majesty's Government well understand and fully share Turkish feeling in this matter. We know well the highlighting quality of the Turkish soldier. We have watched with admiration the courage and sturdy endurance of the Turkish contingent in Korea. We shall support and gladly welcome a reinforcement of the defence ties between Turkey and the Western Allies.

The only question is how this can best be done. This question raises complicated military and other problems which concern not only Europe but also the Middle East. There has been a proposal that Turkey and Greece should become full members of the North Atlantic Treaty. His Majesty's Government would certainly not exclude this solution, but would first wish to be satisfied that it is agreed by all concerned to be in fact the best solution. In consultation with their Allies, they are at present examining the whole matter with the greatest sympathy. Whatever solution is finally agreed, His Majesty's Government are determined that it shall bring greater strength and security both to Turkey and to the West.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE, PARIS

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position of the Foreign Ministers' Deputies meeting in Paris.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope to make a statement on this subject in the near future.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a letter to Mr. Stalin telling him that one cannot play lawn-tennis with a man who will not send the ball back?

Brigadier Rayner: Will not the Government give a lead towards ending this utter farce by withdrawing the British representative?

Mr. Morrison: Not at the moment, anyway. I think that would be unwise. If it is possible for the Four-Power Conference to come off, I should very much like it to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Refugees

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is the official of the United Nations in Korea responsible for refugees within the territory held by United Nations' Forces; and what is the number of the refugees in question.

Mr. H. Morrison: Responsibility for refugees within the territory held by United Nations' Forces in Korea rests with the Chief of the United Nations Civil Assistance Command. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have no information to add to that given to the House on 18th April.

Gloucestershire Regiment (U.S.A. Citation)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet conveyed to the President of the United States of America the appreciation of His Majesty's Government of the citation conferred by the President upon the Gloucestershire Regiment for gallantry in Korea.

Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington has conveyed a message expressing the appreciation felt in this country at the gesture of the President of the United States.

Military Operations

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Defence when he proposes to make his next statement regarding the military situation as it affects British Forces in Korea.

Mr. Strachey: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a further statement next week.

Earl Winterton: As one who originally asked for these statements to be made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend the need for making these periodic statements more frequently, in view of the scale of operations in Korea? Even with our participation in them, we get far less information than we used to get in the days of

the frontier wars in India. It is very necessary that the House should have a statement at least every fortnight.

Mr. Strachey: I am sure my right hon. Friend will see the noble Lord's remarks in HANSARD.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend recommend to the Minister of Defence the need for presenting some picture of how the civilians in Korea have suffered as a result of the war? Is he aware of a statement made by the secretary of the relief organisation of U.N.O. in Korea that one million civilians have been killed and that there are three million refugees? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Minister of Defence for a full picture of the terrible state of affairs in Korea?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

British Compensation Claims

Sir Harold Roper: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the working draft of the peace treaty with Japan which has been prepared by His Majesty's Government includes provision for meeting the claims of British civilians for compensation for property seized in the Far East, including Burma.

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he now proposes to take with regard to the claim of the British Far Eastern prisoners of war for compensation from the Japanese.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope to be in a position to make a further statement in two or three weeks' time.

Peace Treaty

Brigadier Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give any further information with regard to the Japanese peace treaty.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (GREEK CHILDREN)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he receives from the United Nations Organisation about the return of Greek children from Yugoslavia; whether the Red Cross Societies desire any further


help from the United Nations Organisation or from the Member States; how many children have now been repatriated; and how many now await repatriation.

Mr. H. Morrison: The whole question of the repatriation of Greek children from the countries to which they have been taken is being handled on behalf of the United Nations by the International Red Cross which, in turn, has entrusted operations in Yugoslavia to the Swedish Red Cross. I have no information that any request for further assistance has been made to the United Nations or to Member States. I understand that about 300 children have now been repatriated from Yugoslavia, but I am unaware how many remain to be repatriated to Greece. This is a matter which the Swedish Red Cross are still investigating.

Mr. Pickthorn: Are His Majesty's Government convinced that they have done everything possible to cause useful activity by all the organisations and authorities concerned, and, secondly, are they convinced that all these authorities and organisations are, in fact, doing everything that can be done?

Mr. Morrison: We are certainly doing all we can. I think that the organisations concerned are also doing all they can, and my own impression is that the Yugoslav Government are perfectly genuine in their wish to handle this problem sympathetically.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent difficulties have arisen in tracing and identifying the parents in Greece of the children in Yugoslavia?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an important point. It is, of course, one of the major difficulties of the situation.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say whether efforts are still proceeding to try and repatriate children in other countries in Eastern Europe and Greece?

Mr. Morrison: That is a question which would have to be put down on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date of the last communication addressed to, and received from, the Albanian Government in

respect of the award in connection with the mining of the British destroyers in the Corfu Channel in 1946.

Mr. H. Morrison: In a note dated 25th January, 1951, the British agent in the Corfu case informed the agent in Paris of the Albanian Government that the Albanian offer of £40,000 in respect of the British claim arising out of the Corfu Channel incident was unworthy of consideration. The Albanian Government have not replied.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything about it? Is it not an absolute scandal that four and a half years ago many British sailors were killed and that up to now we have had no recognition of any kind whatsoever of the loss?

Mr. Morrison: We submitted to the House a White Paper on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any concrete suggestions, perhaps he will put them down.

Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider throwing a bit of concrete at the Albanian Government?

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give the House some real information on this matter, and whether he does not think it extremely unworthy to try to reply with a "What would you do chum?" technique to a question of this nature?

Mr. Morrison: It is an old and perfectly legitimate technique which previous Governments have followed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not by a Foreign Secretary."] Yes it has. I will find a quotation for hon. Members opposite ready for next time. Inevitably that is so, and I do not think the answer was unreasonable.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can I have an answer to the first part of my Question? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Members opposite do not' care how many sailors were drowned.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Broadcasts

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what increase in the hours Radio Malaya is on the air has been brought about in the past six months.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): Since last December there has been an increase of over 30 hours in Radio Malaya's weekly broadcasting time.

Radiologists

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many vacancies exist in Malaya for radiologists; and what steps he is taking to recruit them.

Mr. Cook: Two. These have been advertised in the medical Press and brought to the attention of any doctor with radiological interest and experience who has made inquiries about posts in the Colonial Service.

Air Commodore Harvey: How does that tally with the information that I have been given that there are seven pieces of equipment at Ipoh and not even a part-time radiologist? Will he look into that?

Mr. Cook: Yes, Sir.

Colonial Service (Vacancies)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many vacancies exist in the Colonial Service in Singapore and Malaya; and what measures he is taking to bring about an increase in recruitment.

Mr. Cook: There are 530 vacancies in all Departments of the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore to be filled from this country, not all of which however require to be filled immediately and of which 175 have been newly notified this year. Posts filled so far this year total 250. Special measures taken include extensive advertising and approaches to Government Departments and to the home police forces for assistance, and to a number of colonial Governments with a view to facilitating transfer of serving officers to Malaya. Salaries have been revised and special terms for short-term contract appointments arranged.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this grave shortage of civil servants in Malaya is throwing a terrific strain on those carrying out their duties there? Will he try and take on for a short term ex-officers,

even men in their fifties, and also approach the Dominion Governments to try and get suitable men?

Mr. Cook: We are exploring every possible avenue.

Mr. T. Reid: How many of these vacancies relate to the administrative service and how many to the technical service?

Mr. Cook: Thirty-one relate to administration and 59 to education.

Squatters

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been done up to date to settle squatters in Malay; and what has been the cost.

Mr. Cook: On April 30th about 220,000 squatters had been resettled or regrouped, about half the total number to be dealt with. Expenditure to that date was 27 million Straits dollars, excluding the cost of new police stations and administrative overheads. Resettlement of squatters is just about complete in the Southern States, which have priority under the Briggs Plan. A parallel operation to resettlement, namely, the regrouping of estate labour, is proceeding concurrently.

Mr. Reid: From what fund are the expenses of this operation met?

Mr. Cook: From both Malayan and U.K. funds.

Conscription

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the system of conscription which is to operate in the call-up in Malaya.

Mr. Cook: All males between the ages of 18 and 24 are liable for compulsory service, but it is only intended to call up about 20,000. After registration, a list of selected persons is compiled by the Comptroller of Manpower and these men are then interviewed by State boards. Those selected are directed into service for a period of two years, normally in the regular police or the special constabulary.

Mr. Awbery: Are we to understand that the Malays, the Chinese and the Tamils are to come under the Conscription Act, and could the Minister let us


know if these men also had a vote at the recent elections?

Mr. George Thomas: Could my hon. Friend say on what basis the 20,000 are to be selected, since apparently conscription applies to all?

Mr. Cook: Suitability for service in any specialised force is required.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken, in consultation with the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, to ensure that no one between the call-up age of 18 to 21 years who leaves Malaya and Singapore will receive a permit to return; and if he will make a statement on it.

Mr. Cook: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 21st February.

Mr. Awbery: Would the Undersecretary inform us what action he intends to take with Chinese living in Malaya who leave Malaya and go to China for a few years in order to avoid their obligations under the Conscription Act?

Mr. Cook: They will not toe permitted to return.

Labour Ordinance

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has given consideration to the revised labour code for Singapore; and when he proposes to introduce it.

Mr. Cook: A revised labour ordinance is in course of preparation in Singapore, but it is not possible to say at this stage when legislation will be laid before the Legislative Council.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that a revision of the labour code both for Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is long overdue, and will he hasten its publication and place a copy in the Library so that Members can see it?

Mr. Cook: The groundwork has been completed, but further consultations are still necessary.

Police

Mr. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements exist for accommodation for police

lieutenants in the Malayan police force recruited from this country.

Mr. Cook: In large towns police lieutenants normally live in messes in Government buildings or buildings hired by Government. At outstations many police lieutenants live in bungalows or other accommodation on rubber estates and tin mines. Others live in purely temporary accommodation.

Mr. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many police lieutenants in the Malayan police force have resigned or been returned to England during the past 12 months.

Mr. Cook: Seven police lieutenants have resigned, some to take up local employment. Sixteen have returned to England on discharge.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT (INVESTMENTS)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the report by the chairman of the Colonial Development Corporation and of the restrictive elements in the Finance Bill which will tend to stop investment in colonial development, what action he proposes to take to finance large scale new development in the Colonies and dependencies.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend does not agree with the implication in the Question that the report of the Colonial Development Corporation necessitates reconsideration of the means of financing colonial development. However material its contribution, it has always been realised that the Corporation could not itself provide all the capital required to enable colonial development to proceed as rapidly as is desired. His Majesty's Government will continue to give the fullest consideration to the requirements of the Colonial Territories for such capital. As regards the reference to the Finance Bill I would invite attention to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the statement made by his right hon. Friend does not in any way obviate the bad things that will arise from Clause 32 of the Finance


Bill, which will get in the way of colonial development and of providing finance for that development?

Mr. Cook: That is a separate matter.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain Colonies have granted an exemption from taxation for five years in order to encourage new business, and that under the Finance Bill as at present drafted any remission in the Colonies will be paid in Britain? Would he talk to the Chancellor about it?

Mr. Cook: indicated assent.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Was the Secretary of State for the Colonies consulted before Clause 32 was put in the Finance Bill?

Mr. Cook: Yes, and he will be consulted further.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the very great importance of this matter, is it really a fact that the full implications of this Clause on investments in the British Colonial Empire were considered by his Department, and is the Under-Secretary prepared to amplify that during the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Cook: That might be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is it not the case that the need for the Colonial Development Corporation was the paucity of private investment in the Colonies long before the Clauses of this year's Finance Bill were introduced? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the cancellation of those Clauses will ensure that sufficient private capital will be forthcoming to make the Colonial Development Act no longer necesssary?

Mr. Speaker: We had better not discuss the Finance Bill at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRENADA (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any estimate has yet been made of the total financial loss sustained during the recent disturbances in Grenada; and what steps have been taken or are contemplated to assist those who suffered such loss;
(2) what steps have been taken since the recent disturbances in Grenada to

strengthen and reorganise the island's police force;
(3) how many prosecutions have been initiated in respect of acts of violence committed during the recent disturbances in Grenada.

Mr. Cook: The strength of the Grenada police force has been increased and a deputy superintendent appointed. In addition, a proposal for the creation of a special police reserve is now being considered by the Legislative Council. Steps have been taken to secure a more effective distribution of the force, to improve its mobility and patrol arrangements, and to provide special training in dealing with disorders. Up to 19th May, there had been 27 prosecutions for acts of violence during the recent disturbances. These involved 57 persons, of whom 45 were convicted.
As regards Question No. 31, I would refer the hon. Member to statements made in reply to Questions on this subject on 4th and 11th April.

Mr. Braine: Is it not clear that the inability of the island's police force to cope with the situation which led to the employment of Service men is an added reason for pressing on with the integration of the services, particularly the police, in the West Indies? In respect of the last part of the Minister's reply to Question 31, would he agree that, to the extent that these losses were sustained as a result of the breakdown of authority in the island, there is a clear moral obligation upon the part of the authorities to make compensation to those who lost?

Mr. Peter Smithers: Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to issue a White Paper on these disturbances? Does he not think that in view of their prolonged and serious nature a White Paper would be extremely valuable?

Mr. Cook: That will be considered.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman will probably remember that on the occasion of the earlier statements we asked for a full report on what had happened so that the House could consider all its implications which, of course, extend beyond the island itself. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would see what he can do in this matter.

Mr. Cook: In reply to the earlier part of the question, my right hon. Friend's labour adviser is in the territories and we are awaiting full reports before deciding what further steps to take.

Mr. Eden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been awaiting this report for some months and we have shown every restraint? Surely the labour adviser could send a telegram or something of that sort?

Mr. Cook: It is much better to wait until we get the full information, so that we can consider every implication.

Mr. Eden: When will that be?

Mr. Cook: As soon as possible.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: What steps are being taken to cure the disease underlying these disorders?

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the ante-penultimate shaking of his head meant that His Majesty's Government take it for granted that there is no question of any compensation for any person injured in his personal property during these disturbances?

Mr. Cook: Ex gratia payments are under consideration, and there was no ante-penultimate shaking of the head.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to have a report from the Governor of Nigeria regarding the dissatisfaction in the Cameroons Development Corporation resulting from the inefficient management, about which information has been given to him; what action is intended to be taken; and if he will make a statement of policy in regard to the future management of the Corporation.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend has received from the Governor information on certain matters of detail raised by my hon. Friend which will be communicated to him by letter. On the question of policy, I invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which I gave him on 4th April. The Corporation is a statutory body, and questions relating to its management are for the Nigerian Government.

The Governor is satisfied that no formal inquiry into its affairs is necessary.

Mr. Cooper: How does my hon. Friend account for the fact that during the past three or four years over half the European staff have been dismissed or have resigned in disgust due to the opposition they have found to any constructive suggestions which they have put to the present Chairman, and could he go further in this matter, because if it is allowed to drift he will find that serious troubles will arise?

Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will await the communication from my right hon. Friend I think he will be satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Hartwell Report

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been taken on the Hartwell Committee Report; and whether he will give an assurance that the Government at Kenya has no intention of introducing racial taxation for educational purposes.

Mr. Cook: No decision has yet been taken on the Hartwell Committee Report as a whole, though certain recommendations have been accepted and put into practice. I cannot therefore at the present stage make any statement in respect of the second part of the Question.

Mr. Hynd: As the Minister says that certain parts have been accepted will he tell us whether this particular part has been accepted, because if it has he will appreciate that it will be regarded as a seriously retrograde step in colonial administration?

Mr. Cook: They do not include at this stage the introduction of racial taxation for educational purposes.

Mr. Hynd: Can we have an assurance on that?

Glancy Report

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Kenya has now completed its discussions on the Glancy Report; and what decisions have been taken.

Mr. Cook: The Glancy Report has been discussed in the Legislative Council, but the main financial recommendations are still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES (MINUTES OF MEETINGS)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is in accordance with precedent in the East and Central African Colonies for local or national government officials to require responsible African organisations to submit to them copies of minutes of their meetings and similar private records or correspondence.

Mr. Cook: Without knowing precisely what kind of organisation my hon. Friend has in mind, it is difficult to answer his Question. If he will give me further details I will do my best to provide the information he seeks.

Mr. Hynd: Is not the Minister aware that at the request of his Department I have already given the full details in a letter at least a fortnight ago, and will he make an effort to give me a full reply to the Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. GEORGE'S DAY (RECOGNITION)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Prime Minister what official recognition is given to St. George's Day.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the practice for St. George's Cross to be flown from many parish churches on St. George's Day, and there is nothing to prevent private persons flying flags if they so wish.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that we can fairly deduce from our history that St. George as the patron Saint is far more representative of the British character than St. Andrew, St. David or St. Patrick—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—would it not be quite proper for the Government to play a greater part in celebrating St. George's Day, and at least might not flags be flown from Government buildings?

The Prime Minister: That might be done. I gather that the adherence to particular saints is not universal in the British Islands. Much more importance is given, I think, to the question in Wales and in Scotland. There is no really great demand for celebrating St. George's Day, but there is no objection whatever to the flag being flown, although I should not wish to enter into any discussion on the valuation placed on saints by different sections of the population.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most popular saint amongst Scots people in London is St. Pancras? Can my right hon. Friend not do something for him?

Mr. Peter Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend consider taking advantage of the availability of the Welsh dragon to enter the contest on this occasion?

Brigadier Rayner: Seriously, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that St. Andrew's flag is flown on public buildings in Scotland and, as far as I know, St. David's flag is flown on public buildings in Wales? Cannot we do the same in this country?

The Prime Minister: I think there is no objection if there is any great demand for it. I have not up to the present been told of any great demand, and I do not think there is.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Overseas Service Men (Postal Facilities)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Minister of Defence whether he has any further statement to make on the possibility of some form of concession on air mail parcels to Korea.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will arrange for a uniform rate of postage on all letters to Service men overseas.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware that the cost of sending a 4 lb. parcel by air to His Majesty's Forces overseas varies from 6s. 6d. to Germany and 22s. to Egypt to 63s. to the Far East; and if he will take immediate steps to initiate a flat rate up to this maximum weight for all Forces overseas, irrespective of where they may be stationed.

Colonel Cyril Banks: asked the Minister of Defence if he will arrange for all letters addressed to men in Korea to be sent by air mail.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I have been asked to reply. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement of the facilities already available for sending letters and parcels to and from Service men overseas, both by air and surface routes.
The House will see that the rates charged to Service men and their families are substantially lower than the ordinary postage rates. In fact, the subsidy involved is now running at a rate of between £800,000 and £900,000 a year. I cannot but suppose that the House will consider that expenditure approaching £1 million per annum of public money for this particular purpose is a not ungenerous provision.
The main concessions already in operation are as follows: First, as to letters. Forces letters—corresponding to civilian air letters—can be sent by air to the Forces anywhere in the world for 2½d. This compares with a rate of 6d. for civilians. In addition, men serving in the Korean theatre can send these Forces' letters home by air mail free of all charge.
Next, ordinary air mail letters can be sent to Service men at a cost of 6d. for 1½ oz., and 6d. for each additional ½ oz., as compared with a charge of 1s. 3d. per ½ oz. for civilians to, for example, Korea and Japan.
Again, ordinary letters sent via surface routes, or, in the case of Europe, by air, to Service men cost 2½d., for the first oz. as against 4d. for civilians, for many parts of the world.
Now I come to parcels. Hon. Members will see from the statement which I am circulating that postal packets—that is to say, parcels the contents of which can easily be inspected—up to 2 lb. in weight, can already be sent to Service men at 3d. per ½-oz. anywhere, including the Far East. This special rate for Service men's packets already involves, for example, a 24s. subsidy for a 2 lb. packet sent to Korea by this method.
The truth is that the sending of letters and parcels across the world by air is an extremely expensive business. I repeat that we are already spending a sum approaching £1 million a year to help Service men and their families in this respect, and I am bound to say that I think that if further substantial sums of public money could be made available for Service welfare, most people in a position to judge would say that there were other things on which we could spend the money to even better advantage. After all, it is perfectly possible to send parcels, in particular, by surface routes at a fraction of the cost of air mail. For example, one can send an 11-lb. parcel

to a Service man in Korea for 3s. 6d. as against 10s. 3d. for a civilian.

Mr. Powell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear whether the regulations on air mail parcels he has just announced are the old regulations or whether they represent some new decision; and if they do not represent a new decision, whether the consideration of this matter, which his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said on 21st March that he was still giving, has yet been finalised?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. This is not a decision, but I thought it wise to call attention to what is technically called a postal packet, which can be sent at these comparatively cheap rates to Korea, because I do not think that has always been fully realised. There is no new decision. The answer I have given represents the reconsideration of the matter which my right hon. Friend promised.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As it is no fault of the Service man that he happens to be serving on the other side of the world rather than in Germany, would it not be more sensible, sympathetic and humane to have a flat rate for all letters and parcels to all Service men overseas, regardless of where they happen to be carrying out their duties? Would it not be better to devote such sum as is inevitably entailed for this purpose in having a flat rate and thus not having different rates for different theatres?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, that could be done but it would involve a very substantial increase in the charge to Germany, for example. On balance, I do not think any advantage would be gained.

Colonel Banks: Is the Minister aware that, in the first place, when letters were received by the Forces in Korea without an air mail letter form they were marked "Insufficiently stamped" when the man received them—without any notification to the people at home that unless they put a 6d. stamp on the letters they would be sent by sea? In one case of a letter for a man in Korea, that man waited for 21 days to hear news that a child had been born at his home, and that was because it was sent by sea mail. I appeal to the Minister to send by air mail—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Strachey: If I understood that question, it was one of delay. I should


have thought, as I have shown in these rates, that it is not an expensive matter to communicate by air to Korea by Forces letter.

Miss Burton: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a flat rate for parcels of up to 2 lbs. for Forces, irrespective of where they are

Following are the details:


POSTAGE RATES FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARCELS FROM THE U.K. TO H.M. FORCES OVERSEAS WITH CORRESPONDING CIVILIAN RATES


EUROPE



H.M. Forces
Civilians


BY AIR:


"All-up" services
Letters: not exceeding 1 oz.
…
2½d.
4d.


each additional z.
…
1d.
2½d.


Postcards
…
2d.
2½d.



Air Parcels
…
No special rates (See Civilians)
Various rates according to destination. 1st lb. 2/9 to 5/3. Each add1. lb. 1/3 to 4/-


BY SURFACE ROUTE:


Parcels: not exceeding
2 lb
…
1/3
2/6 to 5/-



3 lb
…
1/3
2/6 to 7/-



7 lb
…
2/3
4/3 to 7/-



11 lb
…
3/6
6/3 to 9/6



22 lb
…
5/6
9/9 to 15/6


Printed Papers:

…

Newspapersand Periodicals
OtherPrintedPapers


Up to 2 oz.

…
1d.
1d.
1½d.


Each additional oz.

…
½d.
½d.
½d.


Small Packets

…
No special rate (See Civilians)
Each 2 oz., 1½d. (Minimum charge, 7½d.)




OUTSIDE EUROPE


BY AIR:


Lightweight Forces Letters
…
2½d.
Air Letters, 6d.


letters:




M.E.
Malayaand Hongkong Per ½ oz.
JapanandKorea


Up to 1½ oz

…
6d.






Each additional ½ oz.

…
6d.

6d.
1/-
1/3


Postcards

…
3d.

3d.
6d.
7d.


Second Class Mail:


(Printed Papers—limit 6½ lb.)








(Small Packets)—limit 2 lb.)








Each ½ oz

…
3d.

3d.
4d.
5d.


Air Parcels

…
No concession: but packets up to 2 lb. may be sent as Small Packets in the Second Class Mail, or up to 4 lb. as Letters (see above concessionary rate).
Various according to destination:






Examples:






Egypt 2/9 per ½ lb.






Malaya 8/9 per ½ lb.






Japan 9/6 per ½ lb. approx. (to be introduced shortly)


BY SURFACE ROUTE:


Printed Papers

…
As for Europe.
As for Europe.


Small Packets

…
No concession.
As for Europe.


Parcels

…
As for Europe
Various according to destination:






Examples:






Up to:






3 lb.
7 lb.
11 lb
22 lb.





Egypt
3/-
4/9
7/3
11/-





Malaya
3/6
5/9
8/9
14/-





Japan
4/6
6/3
8/9
—

stationed, because their families find this a very heavy item if they want to send a parcel week by week?

Mr. Strachey: There again, I see the attraction of the averaging scheme. Of course, it would be attractive to soldiers in distant parts of the world, but I am afraid it would be very unattractive to soldiers in the nearer parts of the world.

POSTAGE RATES FOR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARCELS FROM H.M. FORCES OVERSEAS TO THE U.K.


KOREA


BY AIR:


Lightweight Forces Letters: free of postage from Korea.


Letters:




Up to 1 oz.

2½d.


1½ oz.

6d.


Each additional ½ oz.

6d.


Postcards

2d.


Air Parcels

No concession


BY SURFACE ROUTE:


Letters:




Up to 1 oz

1½d.


Each additional oz.

1d.


Postcards

1d.


Printed Papers: (including newspapers and periodicals):


Up to 2 oz.

1d.


Each additional 2 oz.

½d.


Parcels: not exceeding
2 lb.
1/3



3 lb.



7 lb.
2/3



11 lb.
3/6



22 lb.
5/6


MALAYA


BY AIR:


Letters:




Up to 1 oz.

10 cents


Each additional ½ oz.

25 cents


Postcards

6 cents


BY SURFACE ROUTE:


Parcels:
Up to 3 lb.
40 cents



7 lb.
80 cents



11 lb.
$1·20 cents



22 lb.
$2·60 cents


EUROPE


BY AIR:


Letters:


Up to 1 oz.

2½d.


1½ oz.

6d.


More than 1½ oz. and up to2 oz.
8d.


Each additional oz.

3d.

Burial Arrangements

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Defence what would be the cost to public funds of providing free transport for widows and parents to attend the burial of members of the three Services killed while on European service in time of peace.

Mr. Strachey: It would cost about £18 to provide free transport for two relatives to attend the funeral of a member of the Forces who dies in Germany or Austria; rather more for certain other parts of Europe.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the relatively trifling amount involved, will

not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer given by his right hon. Friend the other day and make a concession on these lines?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, everybody in the House will feel great sympathy with the suggestion, but it is an inter-Service matter which could not be done for one Service alone. I think I should have to leave the matter of principle to the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. The Question was put down, and appears on the Paper, to the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Strachey: In his absence—and the House knows the cause of his absence—I have given a factual reply. On the question of whether the concession could be made, if it were made it would have to be on an inter-Service basis; that is the only point I am making.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the matter has not yet been considered on an inter-Service basis, notwithstanding the fact that the Question was placed on the Order Paper to the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, the matter can be considered on an inter-Service basis—[HON. MEMBERS: "Has it been considered?"] The Question has been answered. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The facts asked for in the Question have been given. I have said that if any concession or alteration of principle were made it would have to be made on an inter-Service basis, and I think that another Question would have to be put down to my right hon. Friend. All I can do today is to adhere to the previous answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M. SUBMARINE "AFFRAY" (SEARCH)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander BENNETT: —To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what further information he has about the progress of the search for H.M. Submarine "Affray"; and whether any other submarine hulls have been identified during this search.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer Question No. 77.
The Asdic search of the area of 1,000 square miles to which my hon. Friend referred in his statement of 9th May is now complete. Of a large number of contacts obtained, seven were sufficiently promising to be investigated by diving. Five of them have been so investigated, and diving on the other two will take place as soon as conditions permit. No submarine wrecks have been positively identified so far.
The divers are working at a depth of 200 feet, which is the limit of the normal diving suit. Even under the best conditions at slack water divers cannot be down on the contact for much more than a quarter of an hour because of the strength of the tide in this part of the Channel. Conditions are made even more difficult after heavy weather by mud and sand being disturbed. This reduces visibility to nothing and divers have to rely on touch to identify the wreck.
A further area five miles wide and covering the whole length of the southern limit of the original area is now being searched. When this is complete, it is intended to carry out a search to the north of the main area.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I am sure that the whole House and the country will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I ask him if, in order to still a certain number of conjectures and doubts, he will make it clear, as I think it has not yet been made clear, whether the submarine on its passage down Channel was ordered to proceed at periscope depth or at a deeper depth, or whether she was ordered to carry out dummy attacks on merchant ships?

Mr. Edwards: She was certainly not ordered to proceed at periscope depth, but she was actually undergoing war-time exercises, which meant, more or less, that she had to carry out functions such as would be the case in the event of war.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it the intention of the Admiralty at some appropriate moment to have an inquiry into this mysterious accident, and, if so, may it not be possible at some future date to

give the House some information, even though the submarine is not found, as to the events preceding and leading up to the time when she disappeared from human contact?

Mr. Edwards: I think it would be far better if we were to wait until such time as it may be possible to find the vessel itself.

Sir H. Williams: I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said that the divers are not assisted by any means of artificial illumination. Do they have to proceed entirely by touch at some depths? Are they not provided with electric lamps?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that is a little bit technical, but I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every possible device which divers can use is being used at the present time.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Has the possibility of a collision been so fully investigated as to include this possibility, that, in view of the possibility of her having made warlike manoeuvres in the vicinity of shipping, the submarine's upper works—periscope, standards, and so on—may have carried away—an event which may possibly not have been noticed at the time by the ship concerned? Have the Admiralty done anything about attempting to tally all the shipping that passed through that area at the time, and to ask that those ships should be examined for evidence of such a possibility when they dry dock on the next occasion?

Mr. Edwards: I think it can be said that the view of the Admiralty is that there was no question of a collision taking place at all. We have had no evidence to that effect, and therefore the inquiries referred to have not arisen.

MR. BEVIN (WESTMINSTER ABBEY INTERMENT)

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement.
The Dean of Westminster, in response to an approach which I have made to him, with the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C.


Davies), has agreed that it is fitting that the ashes of Mr. Ernest Bevin should be interred in Westminster Abbey, having regard to his great services to the country in many capacities for a long period of years. Mr. Bevin's family have been consulted and agree.
The interment will take place in the presence of members of Mr. Bevin's family, and a few of his friends and colleagues, on the afternoon of Friday, 8th June, immediately after Evensong, which is at 3 p.m.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting the responsibility of the Minister of Transport for answering Questions as to the effect on the public of the strike now going on in the road haulage industry? The precise point is a very short one, and it arises in this way. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was raised at Questions yesterday by a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Labour.
During the questions and answers I asked what steps had been taken to get the private road hauliers to come in to help shift the traffic which was immobilised. The Minister of Labour replied:
That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 38.]
The question was pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and the Prime Minister replied to him that no doubt the Minister of Transport could have replied if notice had been given of the Question. Perhaps foolishly, I accepted the advice of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour in this matter, and I did give notice of this Question, and submitted a Private Notice Question to you, Mr. Speaker, and you turned it down. I want to say at once that, of course, I do not rise to challenge your Ruling in any way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It came, as a matter of fact, as no surprise to me, because I have always found it extremely difficult to get any Question on an important matter relating to transport to the Minister concerned.
The point I wish to raise is this. I see it reported in the Press that consultations have been going on between the Road Haulage Executive and the Ministry on

this very important matter as to whether the private hauliers should be called in or not. It is a matter which raises some quite grave issues. It is not a very simple one. It is quite clear that a decision on that could not be taken without consultation with the Minister concerned, and I rise to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what methods are open to us in this House to put Questions on matters of that importance to the responsible Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for any Minister's refusing to answer a Question. After all, the Question yesterday was to the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the strike. [Laughter.] I mean, who is responsible for endeavouring to settle the strike. Then supplementary questions were asked concerning another Minister. I do not think I can give any guidance. It is a matter for the Minister concerned. He may not think it advisable in the public interest to disclose what steps he is taking. Personally, so far as it concerned me, I could see no urgency for the Private Notice Question, and I see less urgency for it now since the steps the hon. Gentleman proposed were announced on the wireless at one o'clock today as having been taken. So it seems to me that the responsibility lies on the Minister—not on the individual Member—for answering a Question.

Mr. Eden: May I put to you, Mr. Speaker, some considerations that arise? I am afraid I did not listen to the wireless at one o'clock, but that Question yesterday was, in fact, not asked of the Minister—to use your own phrase—who was responsible for the strike: we from this Front Bench addressed the Question to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour, whoever could most conveniently reply. It is a little difficult if, when we frame our Questions like that, the Minister of Labour then gets up and tells us, when we ask about the transport aspect of the problem, that it is not a matter for the Minister of Labour at all. That does make it a little hard for the Opposition when we are trying to discharge our duty and trying to get information for the public.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my affair whether the Minister refused or whether he did answer the Question; that is his affair. After all, it may well be that he thought that some announcement now


might be rather provocative and help the strike to continue, and he must use his own judgment about that.

The Prime Minister: May I say that it does get us into difficulties if, on a Private Notice Question to one Minister, questions can be addressed to any number of Ministers. I always understood that supplementaries should be addressed to the Minister immediately concerned, and I should have thought that it was quite possible to put down a Private Notice Question on different aspects of the strike, to be addressed to the Minister of Labour in regard to the settlement of the strike and to the Minister of Transport on any questions of transportation.

Mr. Eden: Will the Prime Minister not agree that, since the Opposition put a question to the Minister chosen by the Government, it does seem to be a slightly narrow interpretation of functions to refuse to answer anything else connected with the dispute? However, in future, we will address questions to six different Ministers in order to get answers. We know that they will all be different.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I entirely agree with the view expressed by the Prime Minister, and that is exactly what I did. I put down a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Transport. The difficulty was that it was refused, and, as a result, we were no further forward. That is what I did; I tried to follow the Prime Minister's advice.

Mr. S. Silverman: What is puzzling me is how a supplementary question happened to be in order at the time it was put but that when it was put at a later stage as a Written Question it was out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I have never said that the Question was out of order. I merely did not allow it as a Private Notice Question; but not on the grounds that it was

out of order. That is my responsibility and my choice.

Sir Ian Fraser: You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to rule that this Question could not be admitted, but you then went on to indicate that that was because you could not force a Minister to reply. May I venture to submit that the point at issue is not whether a Minister is willing to reply but whether the Question can be put? Could you make clear your reasons why you felt that this Question could not be put?

Mr. Speaker: No, Sir. I never give my reasons for anything. Right or wrong, I give no reasons.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

MONOPOLY PRACTICES

Mr. Crosland: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 15th June, I shall call attention to the need for some further action on the subject of monopoly practices, and move a resolution.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 15th June, I shall call attention to road policy, with particular reference to road safety, and move a resolution.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Braine: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 15th June, I shall call attention to the "closed shop" under public authorities, and move a resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is really a Canadian Bill, or rather a Canadian Act, because it has been passed by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, and it comes before us as a matter of constitutional convenience. It would therefore be quite improper for me to go into the merits of the Bill on either side, and I will only explain in a word or two the reason it has come before us.
The effect of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949, is that the Canadian Parliament can amend the Constitution of Canada, save in matters which are the exclusive concern of the Provinces; that is, of course, by the will of Canada. Anything to do with old age pensions falls exclusively to the Provinces, and therefore in that respect the Canadian Constitution cannot be amended by the Canadian Parliament. The Federal and Provincial Governments in Canada have come to an agreement by which the Federal Parliament shall be given power to legislate in regard to old age pensions, and therefore they wish the British North America Act, 1867, to be amended to enable them to deal with old age pensions.
The Canadian Parliament presented an Address to His Majesty praying that an Act to this effect should be passed by Parliament here, and the Canadian Parliament have been informed that the King is pleased to approve their petition. The Canadian Government have pointed out that they would be glad if this Measure could be passed with great speed, for domestic reasons, and I hope that, with the consent of all parties concerned in both Houses, the Bill may become law by Thursday. I should like to say that the Government here and the Canadian Government hope that this Bill can be passed with very great speed.

Mr. Eden: The Secretary of State has given a very clear account of the reasons for this Bill to amend constitutional practice and

precedent, and we would naturally like to meet the wishes of the Canadian Parliament and facilitate the early passage of this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(RELAXATION OF CONDITIONS FOR INCREASE OF BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF WIFE ENGAGED IN GAINFUL OCCUPATION.)

At the end of subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the principal Act (which provides for increasing the weekly rate of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or a retirement pension for any period during which the beneficiary is residing with or is wholly or mainly maintaining his wife who is not engaged in any gainful occupation or occupations from which her weekly earnings exceed twenty shillings), there shall be added, as from the appointed day, the following proviso:
Provided that this subsection shall—

(a) in relation to sickness benefit payable for any period during which the beneficiary is residing with his wife and is incapable of self-support, and
(b) in relation to a retirement pension payable for any period during which the beneficiary is residing with his wife,
have effect as if for the reference to twenty shillings there were substituted a reference to forty shillings."—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause gives effect to an undertaking which I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), during the Committee stage. My hon. Friend will recollect that before accepting the spirit of his Amendment. I asked him to allow me to find the appropriate form of words. He will see in the new Clause that in defining chronic sickness I have used the words "incapable of self-support." My hon. Friend will recognise, of course, that it is necessary for everyone who has the work of administering this particular Act to be able to define chronic


sickness in a uniform manner throughout the country. I have used this phrase because it is defined as meaning:
Incapable of self-support by reason of physical or mental infirmity and likely to remain so for a prolonged period.
That is the definition in the Act. In practice this has already been interpreted as meaning at least six months; that is, if a man is likely to be sick and incapacitated for work for six months, his wife will be subject to the new earning limit.
My hon. Friend will notice that I have made a further concession. I felt when listening to his speech on the Amendment that he also had in mind the position of the wife married to an old age pensioner—an old age pensioner who was chronically sick but whose wife, younger and more vigorous than he, was out working in order to help the family income. I think that it would be quite unjust to leave that particular woman out of this provision, and therefore I have included the young wife of the old age pensioner. She, of course, will be subject to the same limit as a wife who is married to a man who is chronically sick but not an old age pensioner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(MARRIED WOMEN. AMENDMENT OF 9&10 GEO. 6, c. 67, s. 59.)

Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section fifty-nine of the principal Act shall be repealed and the following paragraph substituted therefor:—
(a) for excepting a woman, if she so elects or if she does not elect otherwise (as may be provided by the regulations)—

(i) from insurance during any period during which she is married to an insured contributor and is a non-employed person;
(ii) from liability to pay contributions as an insured person for any period during which she is married to an insured contributor, and is not excepted from insurance."—[Mr. Turton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is designed to remedy a gap which there appears to be in the National Insurance scheme. Hon. Members will recollect that in the 1946 Act it was the aim of Parliament that all

persons should be eligible for insurance and in due course benefit under the Act. Section 1 of the Act states:
…every person who on or after the appointed day, being over a school leaving age and under pensionable age, is in Great Britain…shall become insured under this Act and thereafter continue throughout his life to be so insured.
It appears that there are certain cases of married women who are excluded from this insurance. If they are married and their husbands are not within the jurisdiction and therefore cannot be insured contributors, it would appear that these married women are, under the regulations and under the Act, ineligible for insurance and benefit. I am quite sure that neither the Minister nor any other hon. Member would like that to happen.
I think that the best way I can explain the position is to give an instance of a constituent of mine who is in this category. She is a Mrs. Edgar. She has a husband who has for many years been working in Central America and therefore cannot be an insured contributor. Shortly before the appointed day, she went to her local office of the Ministry of National Insurance and asked whether she could contribute as a non-employed person, as she is a married woman looking after her family. She was told that she could contribute the 3s. 8d. per week. From the appointed day in 1948 until 12th April of this year she made her contributions in the full and confident belief that she was eligible under the Act.
On 12th April, the headquarters of the Ministry of National Insurance wrote to her son-in-law drawing his attention to the fact that this woman did not come within the operation of the National Insurance Act, and that persons in such circumstances were excluded. The position, therefore, is that persons who have been allowed to contribute for two and a half years find that their contributions are invalid. They have no hope of getting benefit, and of course the Ministry quite rightly say that, as the contributions are invalid, they will refund them on application being made.
As this seems to be an unsatisfactory position, I have tried in the new Clause to alter it by amending Section 59 of the original Act of 1946, in which, in defining the power to make regulations


dealing with married women, the Act merely talks about excepting a person from insurance throughout any period during which she is married and is a non-employed person. It would appear that, in order to bring this category of married women under the Act, the Section should read:
from insurance during any period during which she is married to an insured contributor and is a non-employed person.
I think that if that alteration were made it would enable the Minister to make the necessary regulations to bring in this class of married women. I feel confident that the number of persons who are at the moment excluded by this unfortunate circumstance is not very large, but the mere fact that they are few in number should not deter Parliament from righting this wrong.

Viscountess Davidson: I beg to second the Motion.
I am certain that it is not the intention of the Minister or of the Government to leave cases such as this outside the National Insurance Act. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for this new Clause to receive the Government's support.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries) rose—

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) could be discussed with this Clause, as they both deal with the same point, although one is in a more modified form.

Mr. Macpherson: I should like to support this new Clause. The right hon. Lady is aware that I have an almost similar case in my own constituency. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, the number of cases involved is probably extremely small. The fact, however, that there is only a small amount of injustice being done does not warrant the continuance of the injustice if it can be avoided.
4.0 p.m.
What it means, in effect, is that where a wife who is very much younger than her husband is now looking after her husband and is unable to undertake any outside work on that account, she is completely debarred from participating in the insurance scheme. The only way in which she could participate would be for

her to go out to work. If her husband is very much older than she is, he probably needs to be looked after by her. Therefore, she will be debarred from going out to work and becoming an insured person until she becomes a widow and is relieved of that responsibility. By then, of course, it will be very late in life for her to start going out to work and she will have to work for some considerable time before she becomes entitled in her own right to a retirement pension.
It seems that there is a clear case for allowing a person in this category to start making contributions as soon as possible. The new Clause in my name would allow contributions which have already been made, as indicated in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend and as has happened in a case in my constituency, to count even though they have already been refunded. That being so, I suggest that it would be wise to accept this suggestion.

Miss Irene Ward: I should like to make one point in support of the new Clause. We all agree that elderly women are having a pretty difficult time even though, at this period in our history, there is more employment available for them than at any other period except during the war years. I feel that the right hon. Lady is sympathetic to this very real problem of the elderly women. Therefore, I hope she will be able to accept the new Clause.

Dr. Summerskill: First, I should reassure those hon. Members who have spoken, and indeed those who have not spoken. The position of married women in the insurance scheme was very carefully considered in 1946. It had been very carefully considered by Members of the Coalition Government. During the Committee stage I said in relation to some other Clause that, on the whole, the married woman did get a square deal; that those who were insured in their husband's right were very generously treated—taking married women as a category. We must always bear in mind that we have to administer an Insurance Fund. Although we may feel that an individual has a grievance—and I agree that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has focused our attention on a hard case—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that we must not legislate on one hard case.
The reason married women insured in their husband's right were excluded from the scheme was that it was assumed—and this assumption was supported by the National Insurance Advisory Committee—that if married women who were insured in their husband's right and were not in employment before the scheme were then all allowed to come into the scheme, those who stood to gain substantially would come in and the others would remain outside. I emphasise that if I accepted this new Clause it would bring into compulsory insurance women under 60 who are married to men over 65, and women living in this country who are married to uninsured men who are living abroad.
Some of these women were excluded under the old scheme because their husbands earned an income which was above that prescribed in the Act. Others were excluded because their husbands were in excepted employment. On the whole, this category of woman could not be regarded as the most needy in the community. I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will agree—taking the category as a whole. There are exceptional cases. I am asked to take all these women who were excluded, because this is a compulsory measure, register them compulsorily and insist that they observe the regulations in regard to contributions from National Insurance.
There is no substantial evidence that these women want to be registered or that they want to make this contribution. I do not think that I should be acting in a responsible manner if, because the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton know of a hard case or two, I introduced a provision which was directly opposed to the principle which governs the insurance of married women and which is fundamental to the scheme. Further, it is not correct to say that these women are completely excluded from insurance. If they care to take employment for 52 weeks only, they can become insured. They can then continue their insurance as non-employed persons.
I have already said that there is no real evidence which has convinced me that this new Clause should be accepted. Let us consider the actuarial aspect, which

should be of concern to the whole House. All of us as contributors and as representatives of contributors should be concerned with the Fund. The value of the pension which would accrue to these women would amount to £28 million, and their contribution would be only £5 million. I ask hon. Members to consider that point carefully.
There is another question. Many of our constituents, and many of the constituents of the hon. Members who have supported this new Clause, might object to this compulsory insurance. They would be called upon to pay arrears of contributions which would amount to about £30 for each woman. Is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton satisfied that the married women in his constituency would welcome that expense? I do not think so. On the other hand, I have endeavoured in this interim scheme to try to increase certain benefits. I have not in any way tried to alter the principle of the scheme. If hon. Members feel very strongly that the whole position of married women should be looked at and the principle which governs their participation in the scheme should be altered, then they should wait for the general review of the scheme.

Mr. Turton: It appears that this question is confused by two different problems. First, there is the problem of the wife with the husband who is working abroad and who, in many cases, is young and frequently in not very good circumstances. Then there is the problem of the young wife married to the old man who may well at one time have been insured but who is not now. Would the right hon. Lady divorce the two problems and submit the problem of the wife of the husband working abroad to the National Insurance Advisory Committee to see whether some remedial action can be taken to deal with it?

Dr. Summerskill: I will consider that suggestion, and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I find the argument a little more closely balanced than the right hon. Lady appeared to find it in rejecting this new Clause. I did not know, because it does not appear clear from the Clause, the sort of case which my hon. Friends had in mind when they put this new Clause on the


Order Paper. As I understand the position, a married woman who was not already gainfully employed on 5th July, 1948, cannot become insured unless she is employed either in class 1 or class 2. In other words, it is not open to her to become a non-employed contributor paying her 3s. 8d. under class 3.
The right hon. Lady has made a very important point about the actuarial basis of the scheme, but the figures are not as one-sided as they would appear. The figure of £5 million which she gave is for contributions from the women, but one would normally have to put on the other side the State contribution. On the whole, it might be best to leave the examination of the problem in relation to married women until the periodic review in 1953 or 1954, but the right hon. Lady based so much of her case on the point that the women would have to pay back contributions that I must get quite clear on the point.
I agree that, if this were made compulsory, the payment would obviously not be welcome and that £30 would be far beyond the means of many women. I cannot see why this proposition should necessarily be made compulsory. Married women have an option, alone among the participants under the Act. They can opt, as they wish, in or out of insurance if they are in class I or class 2. It might be worth looking at the proposition to see whether regulations might be made by which those women who were prepared to pay the back contributions could have the option of so doing. Can the right hon. Lady clear up the point why it should be necessary to make this proposal compulsory and whether there might not be a case for making it optional?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman knows a good deal about insurance schemes. I think he would agree with me that an insurance scheme can be effective only when it is compulsory. No insurance fund should be burdened with what might be regarded as bad cases, nor should we encourage only those who stand to gain a lot to come in.

Mr. Turton: In the hope that this matter is being referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(WIDOWS' BENEFIT.)

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out from "exceeded," to "be," in line 28, and to insert:
(a) sixty shillings for the week preceding any week for which she is entitled to a widowed mother's allowance, or
(b) forty shillings for the week preceding any week for which she is entitled to a widow's pension,
the weekly rate of the allowance or pension shall for the week for which she is so entitled.
The Amendment gives effect to the undertaking I gave to increase to 60s. the amount a widowed mother can earn without affecting her pension.

Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Clause 4.—(RETIREMENT PENSIONS.)

Mr. Paton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, after "respectively," to insert:
but, so however, that any beneficiary who is medically certified to be unfit to continue in full employment or has been discharged from his customary employment on grounds of age, and who, being a woman, is over the age of sixty or, being a man, is over the age of sixty-five, shall be entitled to such weekly rates as if, being a woman, she is over the age of sixty-five or, being a man, he is over the age of seventy.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment is one of four, which, I take it, stand together?

Mr. Paton: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if this series of Amendments, in my name and the names of some of my colleagues, could be all taken at the same time.
I have put the Amendment on the Paper because I want to draw the attention of the House to what I believe is a very important omission from the Clause. The Clause makes a very important change in the general provisions for retirement pensions, as originally laid down in the Act and operated since the Act came into force. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance, I think she was wrong when she said a few minutes ago that in this Bill she was not making any change in the principles underlying the original Act.
The Clause introduces an extremely important change in principle. In the Act we accepted the principle of equal


benefits for equal contributions. What we are doing in the Clause, and what we did in the last debate upon it, is to accept the new principle that after the appointed day there should be a differential rate of pension for contributors who have hitherto paid exactly the same contributions. We are here undoubtedly dealing with an extremely important departure from an original principle which governed the working of the Act. This departure has already been accepted by the House, so I do not propose to traverse the previous discussion.
I would point out that all of us accepted it as desirable, in view of the ever-increasing burdens on the productive working population, and in view of the cost of old age pensions which may become extremely formidable within a comparatively few years, that we should take all proper means to lessen those burdens by getting as many old people as possible to continue in work after the normal retirement age. While it is good and wise that we should seek that end by all proper means, we must surely adopt means that will not inflict considerable hardships, and even great injustice, upon certain sections of beneficiaries under the Act.
It is my belief that the Clause as now drafted does inflict such hardships and injustices on the two sections of insured contributors who are covered by my Amendment, namely, those who are physically incapable, by reason of waning powers or by reason of sickness, of continuing in work when they reach the retirement ages prescribed by the Act, or those who are, by the custom of the industry or occupation in which they are engaged, discharged when they reach the retiring age. There is nothing in the Clause, or in any subsequent Amendment on the Paper, to cover those two categories.
Let me take first the case of the physically incapable, who are unable by reason of waning physical powers or of actual sickness, to continue in employment after the retirement age in their customary occupation. Everybody knows that over a very wide field of what we know as the heavy industries the mass of the workers, when they reach the age of 60 in the case of women or 65 in the case of men, having spent a lifetime of useful service in heavy work, are conscious of waning

physical powers. They are probably quite incapable of continuing to work for any period beyond the retiral age in those industries.
What we are facing now is the proposal in the Clause that, after the appointed day, men of 65 in such industries or women of 60, who are unable to continue in their employment because of their physical condition, are to suffer a penalty by reason of that fact. That seems to me to be a quite intolerable proposal, and I can hardly imagine that the right hon. Lady, of whose sympathy in all these matters we are all perfectly well aware, will accept the Clause in its present form and allow that sort of thing to continue.
It is said that there will be room and scope for these people in the light industries. Every hon. Member knows that in the great areas of what we know as heavy industries there is hardly any light job suitable for men and women of this type available to them. These are not areas where light jobs are plentiful. It is almost impossible to conceive that the masses of the men and women with whom I am concerned, who will suffer, will be able to find light work of any description.
We are thus faced with the position that for five years they will be subjected, because of their sickness or physical incapacity, to a penalty imposed upon them by the provisions of this Clause, by which they are denied the ampler pension that will be paid to their more fortunate colleagues who have reached 60 or 65 before the appointed day, or who are over 65 or 70 years of age. It seems to me that the House cannot possibly accept a provision of this kind.
We are told that these people may find refuge in the light industries. I know that a great deal of importance is attached to that idea. I myself am extremely sceptical of the idea that any considerable number of people, either those discharged from heavy industries or those who have already left the light industries and might hope to get back, would find such employment. I think that it is an illusion. In the light industries today the overwhelming number of men and women who have reached retirement age and are still fully physically efficient carry on beyond the retirement age when permitted to do so. It is only those who are conscious of failing physical powers employed in the light industries


who now get out of those light industries at the statutory retirement ages.
I have in my constituency the most important of all light industries in the City of Norwich—the boot and shoe making industry. That is a typical light industry and I have tried to get some information about the conditions obtaining in it with regard to men and women in the category I am now discussing. I have in my hand a letter from one of the biggest employers in that industry in the City of Norwich. I propose to quote only one sentence. He says:
I am employing at the present moment 1,600 men and women, and I cannot find one who has left me at pensionable age, with the exception of very few through ill-health.
I had that opinion confirmed by a letter from the chief officer of the union catering for workers in the boot and shoe industry, who says:
The fact is that where women at 60 and men at 65 do leave the industry it is because they are generally physically unfit to continue, and where men or women do feel physically able and sufficiently mentally alert to carry on they continue working.
So the idea that there is in the light industries a great reservoir of possible employment for men of 65 and women of 60 who are physically incapable of carrying on in their customary employment is something of an illusion. We are thus faced with the fact that, under the Clause as it stands, unless something in the nature of this Amendment is accepted, great hardship and very grave injustice will be inflicted on people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to carry on beyond the retiring age.
Let us glance for a moment or two at the second category covered by the Amendment, namely, those who are discharged from employment with no option at 60 in the case of women and 65 in the case of men. Again, it is within the knowledge of every hon. Member that there are large sections of our industries at this time—particularly in the heavy industries, but by no means confined to the heavy industries—where it is the custom, and has been the custom for a long time, automatically to discharge men at about 65 and women at about 60. These people have no option. They have merely reached the customary retiring age in that employment, and when they reach it they must go; they are sacked.
Under the Clause as drafted, men and women who are discharged from their employment in that way—because it is the custom of the industry—will be penalised for at least 18 months after the appointed day by having to accept a lower pension than that to which they would be entitled if they were 60 or 65 before the appointed day. That will arise simply from the accidental circumstances that these men and women have happened to spend long working lives in an industry where those are the customary conditions. That, again, seems to me to be an intolerable injustice which ought to be removed as speedily as possible.
Now, it is no answer for the Minister to argue, as she may well be tempted to argue, that the physically sick may appeal to the National Assistance Board for extra assistance, which they would no doubt get. The point is that these are people the overwhelming number of whom have contributed to the Insurance Fund during the whole of their working lives. They are people who have an established right to insurance benefit, and ought not to be compelled to go to the National Assistance Board, which most of them would dislike.
In saying that I am not in any way trying to throw any kind of aspersion on the magnificent work of the National Assistance Board in these modern days, with its new spirit, but it is the fact that the majority of working class people are reluctant to go to the National Assistance Board, and would infinitely prefer to get their benefit from the Insurance Fund, from which these people have a perfect right to get it. It therefore will not do to argue that the National Assistance Board will take care of these people. I want them to get their benefit on the higher rate, as they are in my view entitled to get it because of their lifetime of contribution to the Insurance Fund.
On that I make this incidental remark. The people who will be affected by this Clause and by my Amendment are mostly people who have a far greater right to full insurance benefit than a very large number of those over 70 today who will get it without challenge under the new Clause. In nearly every case those who will reach 60 and 65 respectively after the appointed day are people who have contributed to the National Insurance Fund ever since there has been National


Insurance, and over a whole lifetime of effective working service for the community they have established their right and claim to full insurance benefit.
4.30 p.m.
Again, it is no answer for the Minister or anybody else to say that those who are discharged from employment will be taken care of under the provisions attaching to unemployment insurance. I know that they will be expected to register at the exchanges. I also know two facts about that. One is that there is practically no prospect at all that the employment exchanges will be able to find suitable employment for women over 60 and men over 65 in any area of the country, so that they will be continual attenders and registering at the employment exchanges for an indefinite period. While they are doing that, they will, of course, be earning increments as being registered for suitable employment during the period of their unemployment.
But during the whole of the 18 months which it will take them to earn the new increments that would bring their 26s. pension up to 30s., they will be paid at the rate applicable to unemployment benefit, which is only 26s. a week, or at the rate of the lower benefit under the Clause. Not only is that a hardship, but it is an intolerable injustice that men and women who have had no option whether they would continue at work, who have been discharged because of the customs of an industry, should be penalised for 18 months as a result of that entirely accidental circumstance. This is something which the House should not allow to pass.
There is here a very important consideration. Under the new Clause, the position of those who reach the age of 65 after the appointed day and exercise their option to continue at work, is satisfactory; but the others who, being physically fit to continue at work and having the possibility of remaining in their customary employment, decide to retire at the minimum ages, are exercising a voluntary option; they are choosing to get the benefits and advantages of retirement, at the same time accepting with full knowledge a lower rate of pension.
That does not violate any idea of mine of what is socially just, but in the case with which we are now dealing—that of people who have no such voluntary

option, who are simply being sacked from their employment because that is the custom of their particular industry—it would be intolerable if the House were to accept the Clause in its present form and thereby allow hardships of the kind I have described to be applied to quite good and deserving sections of our industrial population.
Those are the reasons I put down the Amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend, while she may not be able to accept the precise wording of the Amendments, will be able to say that, in principle at least, she accepts the point of view we are putting forward and will at some later stage in the proceedings seek to ensure that these grave hardships and injustices, to which I have directed the attention of the House, will be removed from the Bill by means of a suitable Amendment. If the right hon. Lady can give that assurance, we would have no desire now either to prolong the debate or to delay the House unnecessarily. I beg of her, therefore, to give this matter her earnest and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Tom Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support it for totally different reasons from those outlined in the very able case which my hon. Friend has put forward. When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, I referred to differential occupations. Some play was made of that suggestion, but at the same time there is a need for some recognition of the payment of pensions to people who work in the heavy industries. I speak with a long experience in the mining industry.
We have two classes of case, both of which are very difficult when those affected are suffering from industrial diseases, despite all the advancement that has been made by medical science and by the training of the mind to detect this and that. Medical science has not yet reached the stage when it can say definitely that men working in the mining industry are suffering from silicosis—pneumoconiosis is the new word—or miners' nystagmus.
What happens? When a man is suspected of being a sufferer in this way and the medical profession will not go further than that, they say "We suspect you are suffering from miners' nystagmus." The machine that operates is as follows;


The man has then to get a certificate from the doctor that he is suspected to be suffering from miners' nystagmus. He then goes, or is sent, to the certifying surgeon under the Factories and Workshops Act, 1901, and the surgeon says that he is or is not suffering.
The right hon. Lady, who is a doctor knows full well that in the case of miners' nystagmus it is extremely difficult for a doctor definitely to certify that a man is suffering from the disease, because it has been ruled that unless there is oscillation of the eyeball a man is not suffering from it. He may or may not be suffering from astigmatism, but the moment it is discovered that he is, or is suspected to be, a sufferer from miners' nystagmus, despite all the pleading and argument we can bring to bear on the coal owners or upon the National Coal Board, for that reason they refuse point-blank to employ him in the pits underground. It is this type of case that we want to include in the Bill as a beneficiary for the pension. That is one type of case.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Could the hon. Member give some information whether the special scheme of supplementary pensions for the mining industry, the principles of which, we read in the Press last week, have been agreed between the parties, will not provide for some of the types of case which, apparently, he has in mind?

Mr. Brown: At present there is nothing definite on paper as to who will benefit by the new scheme which is under consideration. We are in duty bound not to let-this opportunity pass without putting forward the case on behalf of those men who, we think, will be victims of an injustice if we allow this position to go unchallenged. That is why we feel so very strongly about it. I wish I could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the men to whom I am referring would get some compensation at a subsequent date under the new scheme.
The men who are suspected to be suffering from miners' nystagmus are one type of case. For the man who is suspected to be suffering from silicosis or pneumoconiosis, an entirely different machine operates. Those with a long and varied experience of dealing with suspected silicosis cases know full well the procedure through which a man has

to pass. First, he goes to his medical adviser, who says that he thinks the man is suffering from asthma or bronchitis. Gradually, his condition becomes worse, and then the man says, "I believe I am not suffering from asthma or bronchitis, and that I have that new disease which is known in the mining industry." He cannot pronounce the word, but he gives the doctor an indication of what he means.
He is then sent as a suspect to the Silicosis Medical Board, who are supposed to be the most expert in the Kingdom on that disease. They fail to discover, even by radiography, that the man is a victim of, or suspected to be suffering from, silicosis, and therefore they give him what we in the coal mining industry know as a pink certificate. The moment he gets that pink certificate he knows that his time in the pits is at an end. He cannot get work in the pits and he cannot get work on the surface and many of these men will be over the age of 65 after the appointed day.
I think that my right hon. Friend and her Department ought to give some very serious consideration to these men suspected to be suffering from industrial diseases who fail to establish their claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act when they have attained the age of 65 and are certified to be suspected of or actually suffering from these diseases. I think it is only right and proper, honest and just that they should be the recipients of the full pension. They have paid their contributions from the beginning of 1912 and many of them have never received a penny in benefit either for sickness or for unemployment. To reach that stage and then be denied the right of their pension just because they are suspected and unfortunate victims of either nystagmus or silicosis, is manifestly unfair.

Mr. Daines: I think quite a lot of us would have sympathy with the objects behind the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) but, as the Minister has rightly said, this is an insurance scheme and we have to make rules and be quite sure that when we make the rules they are capable of application. I refer the House to what the Amendment actually says:


…that any beneficiary who is medically certified to be unfit to continue in full employment.
Who is to certify? Is it a general practitioner? Are we reasonably assured that every general practitioner is really satisfied when he issues a certificate? I have had a rather long experience of working the old National Insurance Scheme. I always found that when the football team I supported was at home the ratio of sickness went up considerably if it were a mid-week match. We have to be quite realistic about this. Much as I respect the desire for the general practitioner to have a high standard of integrity, he is very often labouring under great difficulties and I think that that part of the Amendment places a quite unfair burden on the general practitioner.

Mr. Paton: Mr. Paton rose—

Mr. Daines: Will my hon. Friend allow me to finish? If the general practitioner, after careful examination, decides that the man is not suffering from a disease, he often runs the risk of incurring the hostility of the person concerned and of the whole family. I say with all respect to my hon. Friends that, unless there is considerable qualification of that part of the Amendment, it is quite impossible for it to work. It may be suggested that a board should be set up to which these cases can be referred. The Minister can tell the House that it is really surprising to find the number of people who return to work when they are referred to a board. For people of 60 to 65 I think it extremely doubtful that that part of the rule could be applied.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Paton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an enormous field of medical certification today operating very satisfactorily over a whole range of industrial injuries in other fields, including even the determination of inheritability of diseases? Does my hon. Friend consider that because of the difficulty, all kinds of hardships should continue?

Mr. Daines: No. The point I am making is that this is a general, sweeping, provision to cover all cases. If we have identifiable diseases the rule can be worked but if there is a sweeping declaration I say the rule is quite unworkable in

practice. What the Amendment is really trying to do is to get round the previous decision of the House by the back door—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will withdraw that if it offends my hon. Friends, but that is how it appears to me.

Mr. T. Brown: I object to that statement, because it is not true. It is not true at all.

Mr. Daines: Very well, I withdraw it and only ascribe the purest of motives to my hon. Friends. The third line of the Amendment says:
discharged from his customary employment on grounds of age.
What precisely is meant by that? It does not say "at the customary age at which discharge takes place in that employment." After all we are legislating and making rules. Much as I sympathise with the motives behind my hon. Friend's Amendment. I submit to the House, in support of the Government's opposition—which I am certain must come—that, as worded, the Amendment is not possibly workable.

Dr. Summerskill: Dr. Summerskill rose—

Mr. Daines: I have not finished. After all, I do not address the House very often and, with respect, I would point out that I thought I was doing my right hon. Friend's job very well. A little loyalty now and again is a little refreshing even from Government Benches. While I can see that my intervention will prolong the debate, it is still early and we can certainly discuss the Amendment, but I submit that, as drafted, it is quite unworkable and that the Government could not possibly accept such an Amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought perhaps I should intervene at this stage so that those who wish to speak on this Amendment may be fully aware of my approach to it. The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) had an Amendment similar to this on the Order Paper in Committee stage. He withdrew it and, although a Minister is always very pleased when Amendments are withdrawn, I did regret it in some measure because I thought I had been denied an opportunity to explain to the House and to the country why it was impossible to accept an Amendment on these lines.

Mr. Paton: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the original Amendment I withdrew, and to which reference is being made, except for the fact that it contained the reference to medical certification, was an Amendment which the Minister accepted by the amended proposal she put to the House. That is why I withdrew it.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not criticising, but explaining the position. I think my hon. Friend agrees that it contained the proposal that medical certification should be accepted.
Later during the debate in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), speaking on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," very ingeniously pursued the argument that my hon. Friend has pursued this afternoon. Then I, equally ingeniously, with your permission Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as Deputy-Chairman, replied to my hon. Friend and was able to state the case for opposing this Amendment. I must apologise to the House for repeating some of those arguments because the position has changed. The Amendment has, in some respects, appeared again, and it is necessary to explain my position.
The House will agree that no Minister should accept an Amendment if he or she believes that it is impossible to administer it, or at least to administer it in a way which would be accepted by the country as being just and fair. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, would agree with that. It is precisely for that reason that I oppose this Amendment. It is completely impracticable, and I will give the reason. In the first place, it is suggested that the decision of the doctor should be accepted in respect of the diagnosis of old age and incapacity for work. In the second place it is also suggested that an employer should be allowed to pronounce on this very important matter—I shall deal with that aspect in a few minutes. In fact, the doctor and the employer are bracketed for that purpose.
Why did I say that in my opinion it would be wrong to ask the general practitioner to do this? Old age is not a pathological condition; it is a physiological condition. We are not asking a doctor to diagnose senility. Anyone in

the House is capable of diagnosing that, and some of us have done so at some time or other. Senility is easy to diagnose. There may be certain pathological symptoms associated with senility. Old age is a different matter. In my, opinion there is no objective diagnosis of old age; it is subjective.
One may examine a man and find that his eyesight and hearing are normal for his age, his heart sounds are quite good for his age, his blood pressure is normal for his age; in fact, all his faculties are, so far as one can tell, good. But he says "at 65, I am utterly sick of getting up early in the morning, going down the darkened street and doing a job," either in a factory or mine or elsewhere. He may have a little cabbage patch at the back of his house, and he may say, "I am sick of work and I want to be able to spend my time in my cabbage patch for the rest of my days."
Although when he goes to his doctor, the doctor could say "It appears to me that your heart is all right for a few years," what should that man do? I say that he should retire. He is tired of work, exhausted, weary. But as I say, there is no objective diagnosis of that. There has been no medical or surgical instrument invented which can determine the measure of sickness of work. Therefore, it would, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) has said, be quite wrong to put that burden on the shoulders of the general practitioner.
Some of my hon. Friends who come from mining towns know that there are doctors there who have perhaps brought into the world the whole family—the children and grandchildren—of such a prospective patient. Large numbers of them are today on the doctors' medical list. The man goes to the doctor and says, "I want a certificate. I am fed up with work, I feel that I am too old; examine me and give me the certificate." The doctor may be a man of the highest integrity, but think of the family pressure which will be brought to bear. He feels he has known this man for years, knows his children, etc., and he might not find it in his heart to say "No." Although he knows that from the medical standpoint he should refuse to give the certificate he gives it.
In the next village or town there may be a doctor who has not known his patient for so long, and whose approach is different. He examines a man who makes a, similar application to him and says "You are quite fit to work." In a very short time it will become known that there are two standards, that there is no uniform approach to this matter. Prospective patients will, quite rightly, have a grievance. They will say to my Department "There is no uniformity in this matter. What do you propose to do?" The only thing that could be done would be to set up a medical board.
Let us assume that a medical board is set up; let us assume that we can get the medical personnel for such a board. What is the board faced with? Again, it is in exactly the same position as the medical practitioner. There are no pathological symptoms associated with old age as such, so the doctors on the medical board are in no better position to judge. Let us further assume that the board is set up and that this bit of machinery begins to creak. The patient goes to the medical board, and then he has a grievance. What do we then do?
All my hon. Friends who have spoken about industrial diseases know that if we followed the same pattern as we do today in respect of industrial diseases we would set up a medical appeal tribunal. It would be absolutely impossible today to staff such a tribunal. We have not enough doctors to see all those people who are suffering from pathological conditions as quickly as I should like them to be seen. My hon. Friends who have talked about pneumoconiosis, silicosis, asbestosis and byssinosis know full well that there are many men in their own areas who agitate for the expediting of their examination.
In the case of South Wales, where pneumoconiosis among the miners is very common, miners' representatives approach me at times, and say, "Can you hurry this on? There are people waiting." We have to say that the number of people who are expert in this disease are limited. Here it is suggested, if this proposal is followed to its logical conclusion, that we should set up this kind of cumbersome machinery which could not be staffed in order to diagnose a complaint which in my opinion is undiagnosable.

With reference to the industrial diseases about which my hon. Friend spoke, he will agree with me that his remarks cannot properly be related to the Amendment.
The second point about the proposal to which I wish to refer is that the decision should be left to the employer. I wonder whether, before my hon. Friends put this Amendment on the Order Paper, they consulted the representatives of the trade unions who are concerned. I wonder how the T.U.C. would feel. One has a right to consider how the representatives of the workers would feel on this question if I decided this afternoon to allow employers to make this decision. It would work both ways.
One might find a kind-hearted employer who would say, "Jim has been working for me for a number of years. I must give him a certificate." I am presuming that the employer must give a certificate that the man is suffering from old age and is no longer able to work. But what about the employer who feels that he can get more out of younger people—there are such—and who are far from being sympathetic to the desire of the Ministry of Labour that employers should keep more old people?
Such an employer might say, "I shall get rid of old Jim," although Jim wants to go on working. Jim is in a difficult position. If he says to the employer, "I am all right, I can go on working," the employer could reply, "No, I have a legal right to decide who is too old to work in this factory." That is, he has a legal right in so far as he follows certain trade agreements. I have been told during both the Second Reading and the Committee stage that there are such employers as I have described who will be only too happy to jump at the chance of dismissing people who want to work because they wish to dispense with the services of those people, and who know they are safe because their action is governed by some agreement. So, when my hon. Friend suggests that this power should be given to the employer—

Mr. Paton: Mr. Paton rose—

Dr. Summerskill: No. I cannot give way. My hon. Friend has spoken for a long time. I suggest that there are dangers in this proposal and that it might be abused, and, for the other reason I


have given, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I think that is the only other point I wish to make, the position of the employer and the attitude of the representative of the workers to this Amendment. I am quite sure my hon. Friends put forward this Amendment with the finest of motives, but they will realise that I would be a very bad administrator if I accepted something which I knew was unworkable.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the point I raised about the suspected sufferer from silicosis or miners' nystagmus. There is a vast difference between a suspected sufferer and a person who is certified to be suffering from silicosis or miners' nystagmus. A person who is certified can claim a pension. That is not so in the case of a suspected sufferer; yet that man is prevented from going back to the industry where he contracted the disease.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend knows that we follow certain rules of procedure in the House and that one is expected to confine one's remarks to the Amendment before the House. I feel that at the moment my hon. Friend is digressing, and asking me to approach this matter from the stand point of those suffering from industrial diseases rather than from the stand point of those suffering from old age.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but the Amendment does say:
…who is medically certified to be unfit…
That is the point. When the man goes to the certifying surgeon and is certified to be suffering from miners' nystagmus, he is finished at his job. When a man goes before the silicosis medical board and is certified to be unfit to work in his own employment, he is finished. That is the type of case I wish the Minister to consider and she is sadly missing the point I am trying to make.

Dr. Summerskill: No, I am not missing the point which my hon. Friend is trying to make, but I think he is trying to make a very special point. The administrative difficulties which I have explained would relate to his point, if I accepted what he said, because I take it he is talking about those people who are suffering from these diseases and who are also old. Old age

would still come into it. I do not want to go into the details of these diseases but I know something about them. Is it not a fact that many young men suffering from miners' nystagmus still continue to go down the pits in the very early stages of the disease? What my hon. Friend is saying must, of course, be related to those suffering from miners' nystagmus and from old age.

Mr. Brown: That is all very well, but this is a very important matter to the miners and I have had some experience in dealing with men who were turned down and could not continue work. I want the Minister to realise that we are trying to safeguard her Department and not to create administrative difficulties. There are men in the mining industry who have been certified to be suffering from silicosis—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. The hon. Member must remember that we are not now on the Committee stage and that he must not repeat his speech.

Mr. Brown: Very well.

Mr. Charles Williams: I regret that I did not hear the opening speeches upon this Amendment, but I did hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). I have known him for a long while and have the highest respect for him. He has put down an Amendment which deals with a particular trouble in the coal mines, and I am perfectly sure that he would not have done so, or have spoken as he did, unless he had full knowledge that, with sympathetic administration, it could probably be worked to the advantage of the miners.
I would hardly say that the speech of the Minister was filled with sympathy. She said it was impossible to accept the Amendment because of administrative difficulties. There is a very good solution to that. Let us have people to administer it in such a way that there is real sympathy revealed. I believe that, although this Amendment may not be absolutely the right form of words, there is a real point here. Some of us who have spent many years in the House have often listened to representatives of mining constituencies. Although we may not have personal experience of coal mines, we do consider that those Members—and I am sure that the Patronage Secretary will bear


me out—have a very real knowledge, on particular questions such as this, of how these things can be done.
I regret that, although the Amendment may not be perfect in itself, some hope was not held out by the Government on this occasion. There is a great deal to be said for the Amendment and I believe that with an administration of a rather different type it could be made workable.

Mr. Watkins: I wish to address myself to that part of the Amendment which deals with medical certification. Judging from the remarks of the Minister, one would imagine that this was an entirely new principle. May I remind the Minister that in 1948, when widows were in receipt of 10s. a week, they could qualify for 26s. a week pension if they could provide a medical certificate that they were unable to continue employment. Therefore, when she says it is not possible to get a proper certification I consider that to be entirely wrong, because the principle was accepted at that time. If there had been abuses at that time, surely it was the duty of the Minister to bring it to the attention of the House, but I am not aware that there has been abuse in that respect. If medical certificates were accepted at that time surely they can be accepted now.
Hon. Members also will recall that, before the new Act of Parliament, if a person finished his insurance period at the end of a certain period. 30th June or 31st December, if he could provide a medical certificate at that time that he was unfit for work, the insurance period was carried on for another six months. Can that be said to be unworkable? The principle has been accepted by the Ministry all along.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: May I tell my hon. Friend that in the case of the widow to whom he has referred there had to be proof that she was incapable of self-support, which, I suggest, is rather a different principle from the one contained in the Amendment?

Mr. Watkins: Surely one reason for being incapable of self-support would be on medical grounds, and that is a genuine argument to put forward. I cannot see where the medical board would come into it, because either we accept a certificate of the medical practitioner or we do not.

I think we should press for that part of the Amendment as much as possible. I am also interested in this principle being applied in other cases. It is in South Wales where there are 17 per cent. of disabled persons unemployed and those over the age of 45. I do not say that they are unemployed all the time, but it is possible that some will not be able to continue their work, and, therefore, on the production of a medical certificate there should be an increase of pension for them if they are certified as unemployable.

Mr. Houghton: The House will appreciate that the Amendment refers to two difficulties which arise through departing from the principle of uniformity of benefit. That is really the whole crux of the matter. The Bill as now drafted is proposing to differentiate between one person and another who, previously, had been entitled to the same amount of benefit under the National Insurance scheme. The Amendment refers to one class of person who could be given a medical certificate stating he or she is unfit to continue in full employment. That is a different form of words from that about which I reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) when I intervened a moment ago, and mentioned widows who had to be certified as incapable of self-support. The Amendment is not applying words which are so rigid in relation to those who might claim a higher retirement pension under this Amendment as is the case with widows under the concessions made in the 1946 Act.
The other class of person referred to in the Amendment is that of people who are unable to continue their normal employment because of some requirement under their conditions of service, which lay it down that they shall retire at a certain age. This and the other problem which arise depart from the principle of uniformity of benefit, and suggest a need to bring forward an inquiry and review into the working of this scheme, so that we may see what difficulties this new principle creates in many directions and how they are to be dealt with.
We are moving into a period where the differential between the retirement pension of those who retire at the pensionable age, provided for in the 1946 Act, will be different from the pensions payable at a later age. I think the differential pension


has come to stay; otherwise, it seems to me, that the country will be committed to a very heavy financial burden which will arise from the need to pay higher pensions to meet higher living costs, so that the total cost of National Insurance will rise very sharply indeed in the coming years, leaving perhaps a burden of unexpected difficulty on the Exchequer. If that is to be a feature of the National Insurance scheme for the future, then it will be necessary to consider the many marginal difficulties which will arise in the administration of the new principle.
For instance, there is an urgent need now for considering the whole conditions of retirement in many occupations and vocations, and we must now link the proposed differential pension rates at different ages to existing schemes of occupational retirement. We must also consider, in relation to this change, the need for changing the occupations of workers in heavy industries at an age which perhaps will enable them to take on different, lighter but more suitable work to enable them to continue at work after the conventional pension age prescribed in the 1946 Act.
In various directions proposals are now being made for changes in retirement conditions in particular occupations, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already referred to changes which are now being proposed in the public service. Elsewhere, too, I think the retirement conditions in various occupations must be reconsidered in the light of the need to continue the services of workers longer than was anticipated at the time when various superannuation schemes were devised.
5.15 p.m.
Very little research has yet been done into the possibility of changing occupations in preparation for the age at which, in heavy industries, the worker would have to retire, and to arrange suitable experimenting transfers to other occupations to prolong the working life of quite a number of people who otherwise would be compelled to retire. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made out a very convincing case against this Amendment on administrative grounds, and it will be difficult for us to press this upon her, although we realise in both

respects that there may be cases of hardship. However, I think that that underlines all the more the need for expediting reconsideration of the whole operational scheme established in the light of the new principle which the Bill now proposes to introduce. That, I believe, is now a matter of some urgency.

Mr. Mikardo: That part of the Minister's speech which dealt with the proposals for a medical certificate was remarkable in that she made no comment one way or the other on what she thought were or were not the merits of the proposal. She rejected it entirely on the grounds that whether it was a good one or a bad one—and she did not pass any opinion on it or give any evidence as to whether she cared about it—it just could not be worked. I take the liberty of assuming that, if the Minister thought the proposal bad on its merits, she would have said so in inviting the House to reject it, and that since she did not she thinks the proposal would be a good one if it could be applied. What she says is that if medical certification is to be carried out by general practitioners it may not be reliable, and if it is to be carried out by an independent medical tribunal then it will set up a most cumbersome piece of machinery.
If it be a fact that there is nothing against the proposal on its merits, then it follows inevitably that its rejection on purely administrative grounds implies an admission that the rejection will leave a great injustice unremedied. The reason why this injustice has come about is the very reason that lies behind the moving of this series of Amendments; and is the logical position which the Government have got themselves into over this Bill as a result of the changes that were made during the Committee stage. What we are now trying to do is to put patches on an unsound structure. We are then finding that the patches themselves are unsound and that we have to put on another patch. Then the Minister comes along and says that it is administratively impossible to put a patch on a patch which has already been put on a leak.
The whole House will agree that there is much virtue in the idea that, with the increasing longevity of the population and its, happily, improved health, especially in the later years of life, there is much


to be said for encouraging people to go on working longer, not merely for the purely material reason advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that that will reduce the cost of the insurance scheme, but also because it is better for the people themselves to continue working if they are fit and able to do so. We are all agreed that the lengthening of the period of work for people fit and willing to work is a good thing and that it should be encouraged; but we must bear in mind that it involves a revolution in our social service and a reorganisation in industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby spoke about the psychological and organisational adjustments which he said we ought now to start studying to make possible a changed outlook about the employment of older people. If the Government had come to the conclusion that it was desirable, first, that people should continue working longer, and, second, to use a differential rate of retirement pension as a means of encouraging that longer work, clearly what it ought to have done—and what it would have done if it had considered the old people first and the revenue second and not vice-versa—was to give notice that in two or three years' time a differential rate of pension as between the ages of 65 and 70 would be introduced.
The two or three years could then have been used for the study and research about which my hon. Friend spoke. The period could have been used to get employers accustomed to the idea that there was nothing sacrosanct about 65 and that a man could go on working after that age if he was fit and willing to do so. It could have been used by the Government to change its own employment rules and could also have been used for the negotiations which are necessary between employers' organisations and trade unions. It could also have been used by people approaching the retirement age to make their own decisions and to accustom themselves to the effect of their decisions as to whether they would continue at work or not after what they would normally expect to be their retirement age.
That would have been the proper and, indeed, the only honest thing to do if it were desired that people should continue

working longer in the interests of the people themselves primarily and in the interests of the Chancellor's Budget of this year only secondarily. The decision to introduce this differentiation without notice and under conditions in which people who were compulsorily retired would suffer, because they had no choice of going on working beyond the normal retirement age, was a grossly unfair one reached on purely short-term budgetary considerations and not on long-term social considerations.
It is idle to say to one of the railway-men in my constituency that we propose to give him less pension in order to encourage him to go on working longer when, on the day he is due to retire, he is told by his employer that he must leave whether he likes it or not. It is unfair to a man who has been a shunter from the age of 14 to 65 and is then put out of work without his having any say whether he should be and when he can go off and get an occupation somewhere else, perhaps as a progress clerk in a railway factory. Those who know how industry is run will realise that that is likely to happen in only a tiny minority of cases.
What happened between the Chancellor's Budget speech and the introduction of the Bill? A considerable number of my hon. Friends made representations, as a result of which a concession was made which has resulted in the Bill being in its present form. We should all welcome the concession because its effect is to give the higher rate to many people who would not otherwise have had it. Having welcomed it, let us bear in mind the fact that it creates an enormous number of anomalies. In spite of creating those anomalies, what does it do? It has robbed the Chancellor of the greater part of the original purpose of the proposal, because he will not now be saving anything like the money it was originally proposed to save.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: If I may be allowed to develop my argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will see that it is germane to the Amendment.
If the sensible thing had been done and people had stopped worrying about saving their faces and had said, "We shall not get any real saving out of this; we might just as well retract altogether and now give two or three years' notice that we will introduce the principle firmly, without exceptions, medical or otherwise, in two or three years' time," the necessity for the Amendment would not have arisen.
To controvert what my right hon. Friend has said, I am trying to argue is that, if there are, as she says, administrative difficulties in the Amendment, that is only because of the administrative difficulties in the Bill as it now stands and as she presented it. Therefore, it seems to me that it is not enough to reject the Amendment on administrative grounds only and in a speech which virtually concedes that its rejection will be creating one more injustice and one more anomaly. The only way the Government can now get out of the mess into which they have got themselves—since it is too much to hope that they will withdraw the Bill altogether—is by expediting the total review of the whole scheme, and when that comes I hope that this niggardly provision, which creates anomaly without saving much revenue and which, by all admissions, does injustice to some of the community, will disappear altogether from the Statute Book.

Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), has rather coloured the case, and I do not think that many of us who were associated with the efforts to obtain the concession would agree with him. I have never yet seen an Act of Parliament which does not create anomalies of one sort or another. If we adopted his suggestion about serving notice on the whole working population that we would do something in two years' time we should merely have been deferring the date on which he could have made that sort of speech.

Dr. Summerskill: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pannell: Although I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, particularly with regard to the employer and the difficulties of the administration of the scheme, I believe that there is, broadly, a case for very much more thought on this than has been given to it so far. In

another sphere my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) represents civil servants; in another sphere I represent engineers; and that is all the difference. Broadly speaking, the superannuation schemes which make it easy for people to retire apply more to people in the Civil Service and the local government service, and now such schemes are being extended into the nationalised industries. Consequently, there is a different hardship situation between people who work in sedentary occupations and those who work in heavy industry.
5.30 p.m.
We are given to understand that next year a pension scheme is to be introduced for miners. The engineers, for instance, and particularly those in the private sector of industry, will be thrown completely on the national funds at the age of 65, because there is no superannuation for them. It would be useless to say that the people I represent consider that this is a popular proposal. I heard of a case the other day of a man who will reach the age of 65 a month after the scheme comes into force.
Somebody cited the case of a man who, though subject to the provisions of the Act, had never drawn a penny from national funds. I can only say that he is a very lucky person indeed. But I am not arguing that case. What I am trying to argue is the case of a man in the heavy engineering industry who, early in life, may suffer a crippling injury but carries on. Before I came to the House, I worked for a good employer who never retired anybody before the age of 65. We had a pension scheme. But the difficulty of sorting out men in skilled industries for light jobs is a very real one. I was always consulted in such matters, and there came the point when we were compelled to take in younger men to make the shop work.
As the Minister said, it is only reasonable that a man who has worked for most of his life in a mine or in heavy engineering should be entitled to say after reaching a certain age that he has had enough of it. He is certainly far more entitled to say it than, for instance, a civil servant. That view, of course, may arise from my prejudices, although I do not think it an unreasonable view. After all, the burden thrown on a civil servant who, throughout his working life, has had


reasonable and regular hours is far lighter than that thrown on a person in heavy manual employment who, throughout his working life, has had to work from, say, 7.30 in the morning until 5 o'clock in the evening, and who has been subjected to recurring shift work.
Therefore, I think that the solution must be found in the scheduling of certain heavy industries for the purpose of giving the men engaged in those industries the option to retire at an earlier age, together with a complete overhaul of many superannuation schemes which, in my view, give an unwarrantable advantage to those who carry the lightest load during their working life.

Mr. Keenan: There are one or two remarks I feel justified in making following upon what has already been said on this matter, and I am rather glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) specified those affected in the different industries. At the outset of this debate, the House rather tended to confine its remarks to the ageing and the disabled in the mining industry. But this is a matter which affects many other industries besides mining and engineering. There are, for instance, the ship repairing and shipbuilding industries, and we must also not forget the seafarers whom we want to go to sea up to the age of 65 or over.
I share the Minister's apprehensions regarding the question of medical certification, but I think we must admit that the Government have gone some way to meeting our opposition to their recent suggestions. However, I think we have to look beyond the Bill to find the solution to the anomaly which this Amendment is, to some extent, designed to remove. What perturbs me is the fact that the Minister has not given any very clear indication of the Government's intention beyond what is stated in the Bill regarding what is going to be done with the person of 65. I believe that the majority of the 12 million productive workers in this country will at the age of 65 not only be deserving of retirement, but will not be able to continue working very much beyond that age. Merely to say that as from next September or October anybody who reaches the age of 65 will be 4s. a week worse off than those pensioned

before that date will not solve the problem.
While I appreciate what is behind this proposal, the fact remains that in the years to come there will be too few workers to take the place of those who retire. Neither the Clause with which we are concerned nor the Amendment which we are now discussing will remedy that position. Whether the Amendment is accepted or not, or whether any promise is given for its further consideration, I hope that, at any rate, there will be no waste of time in getting down to this particular problem. I think there is something in what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), said when he suggested that some notice might have been given to the effect that this provision would be put into force in a year or two's time so that industry could have adjusted itself accordingly.
As has already been stated, it is not merely a question of whether a person can or cannot retire at the age of 65. It is a question of what the industries are going to do, and it would certainly be stupid, as the Minister said, to leave it to the employer, because no employer would be foolish enough to retain an ageing man if a younger one were available. Therefore, we have to approach the matter from a different angle, particularly as the problem varies from industry to industry. For instance, those who have been Members of Parliament for 30 or 40 years will obviously be able to continue their activities longer, compared with those engaged in heavy industry, because their minds are running to seed. In the same way, as has already been pointed out, civil servants will be physically capable of continuing at work after the age of 65.
As I have said, this question cannot and will not be resolved by what the Clause or the Amendment states. Something more has to be done, particularly if there are only 12 million productive workers who will be affected by this legislation. There are about 4,250,000 other people in the country entitled either to contributory or non-contributory pensions at the age of 65 or under, and there are over one million other people of pensionable age who are not in need of either one or other of these pensions. And they have to be carried by this diminishing


number of those at the bottom. I am sorry that a little consideration has not been given to the Amendment because as the Bill now stands the people affected will not be satisfied. Men who become 65 after the appointed day will have a grievance, either because they were not 65 before or have had to cease working for other reasons.

Mr. Paton: In view of my right hon. Friend's unyielding attitude on this matter, which I deplore, I think it is futile to press the matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Miss Ward: Would it be in order at this stage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say how much we deplore the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton), withdrawing the Amendment? The hon. Gentleman has put up a very good case, and I have also put up that case, though I do not entirely support the terms of the Amendment. As I understand, the right hon. Lady will not give way at all or give any promise of consideration.

Mr. Poole: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it a debatable Motion that leave be given to withdraw an Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): In reply to the hon. Member, the position is that if objection to withdrawal is taken in any quarter of the House, I have no option but to put the Question.

Miss Ward: I was about to give the reasons for refusing permission to withdraw. May I continue?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is entitled to speak on the Amendment before the House.

Miss Ward: As a representative of an industrial area, I object to the withdrawal because it does not seem as if full consideration has been given to this point which was raised on Second Reading and on the Committee stage and is raised again now on Report. I do not think it serves the interests of workers in the heavy industries for hon. Members to come to this House to move an Amendment and then, when their own Government refuse to give way, to get up timidly and say, "I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."
As I feel very strongly on this matter, I propose to challenge the Government

on the Amendment and see how this supporter of the Labour Government proposes to vote. I hope that some hon. Friend on this side will act with me as a Teller if the hon. Member for Norwich, North will not accept my offer to act with him as a Teller. Therefore, when you put the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I propose to refuse my permission for the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to ask the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), if she feels so strongly about the principle she says is involved in this Amendment, why she did not either add her name to the Amendment or arrange for a similar Amendment with the support of her hon. Friends?

Miss Ward: As I gave way and the hon. Member tempts me, may I give the history of this matter? In fact, I did put down an Amendment under my own name on this point. It was not called on the Committee stage because the Deputy-Chairman at that time quite rightly ruled that in the circumstances I could make my speech on the main concession which the right hon. Lady made on that occasion. Hon. Members opposite may criticise me or my party as much as they like, but I am not going to allow them to say I am not courageous. The fact that I put down an Amendment in my own name is the answer to the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas).
5.45 p.m.
I made my speech on the main concession on the Committee stage of the Bill and I quite expected that in due course the right hon. Lady would be in a position to tell us what is to happen under this new scheme to those people who, by virtue of their employment in heavy industries or because they are medically unfit or because as many women are, they are not enabled to find work, cannot continue working. Unfortunately, I was at another Committee dealing with the business of the House and therefore I did not hear the right hon. Lady's reply; but I understand she was adamant, and that does not suit me or my area or my constituents. Therefore, I am not prepared to give permission for this Amendment to be withdrawn, even though in detail I preferred my own


Amendment to the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member for Norwich, North.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Miss WARD was appointed Teller for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as second Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(2) As from the appointed day, in the case of any woman who is between the ages of sixty and sixty-five on that day or any man who is between the ages of sixty-five and seventy on that day, paragraph 9 of Part I of the second Schedule to the principal Act, as amended by the preceding subsection, shall have effect as if for the entries of sixteen shillings and twenty-six shillings in the second column thereof there were substituted the entries of twenty shillings and thirty shillings respectively.
The Amendment gives effect to a promise which I made on an earlier stage.

Mr. Peake: I believe that the right hon. Lady has moved the Amendment, although I could not hear a word she said. I am not surprised that she said so little, for this is indeed a most painful moment for us all. This is the Amendment which the hon. Lady conceded after great pressure between the Second Reading and the Committee stage from the benches behind her. I feel this afternoon as if I were present at the registration of an illegitimate birth.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman the father?

Mr. Peake: No. The father is the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) and he, I see, is too shy to attend our little ceremony this afternoon. The right hon. Lady did not want it.

Dr. Summerskill: I do not claim the maternity.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Lady is the sponsor of this child this afternoon and she certainly did not want it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did his very best to strangle it at birth. I feel, therefore, that we had better pass on as quickly as possible, and I note that a great many

hon. Members opposite, out of a sense, I suppose, of shame and decency, have made the speeches which would more properly have been made on this Amendment upon the preceding one.
I therefore do not want to delay the House, but I think there are one or two things which must be said at this stage about this proposal. This is the proposal that all those who have attained 65 in the case of men or 60 in the case of women on the appointed day shall be granted the higher rates of pension automatically, and that all those who are unfortunate enough to attain these respective ages after the appointed day, whether it be only a day or a week or a month after the appointed day, are going to be deprived of it.
The weakness of this proposal was pointed out in considerable detail on the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), who was, I think, for nearly three years the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of which the right hon. Lady is now the Minister. Of course, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West, has been in an unequalled position for seeing the weaknesses of this proposal, both regarding its merits and the administrative difficulties to which it is bound to give rise.
I would only point out that it is going to come into operation on an appointed day. Obviously, in order that old people may get the benefit of the Amendment it will be desirable for the appointed day to be delayed as long as possible. On the other hand, if it is delayed too long some of those who might otherwise have benefited by it may be dead before the appointed day arrives. But there is also, of course, to be another appointed day for a different purpose. The right hon. Lady hopes that the appointed day for this Bill will be on or shortly before 1st October, but the other appointed day to which I refer will be appointed, I suppose, by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, and that is the appointed day for the General Election.

Mr. Shurmer: Would not you like to know!

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is this in order on the Report stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is in order.

Mr. Peake: I feel quite sure that I am in order. I am speaking to this Amendment which lays down an appointed day on or after which persons will get the increased rates of retirement pension, and I am pointing out that it is within the competence of the right hon. Lady under the Bill to settle when that day shall be.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What has the Foreign Secretary to do with it?

Mr. Peake: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman who, if I may say so, is being a little denser than usual. Subject to any powers exercised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), it will be the Foreign Secretary who will decide the appointed day for the General Election, and what I am seeking from the right hon. Lady is an assurance that at least one payment at the increased rate of 30s. to the single men and of 50s. to married couples shall be given on or before the appointed day for the General Election. Surely it would be extremely fortunate that 4½ million old age pensioner voters should receive at least one benefit, and perhaps two or possibly three, before the appointed day for the General Election.
If the right hon. Lady leaves it too long, let her note that as every week passes after the day which she appoints, there will be approximately 8,000 people who have attained these retiring ages and who will be deprived of the increased rates of benefits. Therefore, let her not make her appointed day too soon before the day appointed by the Foreign Secretary for the General Election.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(4) Subsection (3) of section twenty-one of the principal Act shall have effect as if the following words were added at the end of paragraph (b) thereof:
Provided that she shall be entitled, in any period of employment in which she may engage after her husband has died and she has attained pensionable age to make so many contributions as were made by him but not taken into account for the purposes of that subsection; and in respect of each twenty-five such contributions the weekly rate of her pension shall be increased by one shilling and sixpence.

This Amendment has to do with married women who are more than five years younger than their husbands and who, therefore, under the National Insurance Bill as it now stands, as I understand it, cannot benefit from any contributions made by their husbands after the date when they become 65, so that a woman cannot get the increments resulting from those contributions made after her husband becomes 65 if she becomes a widow. That is the situation which exists at present.
I think that I might perhaps explain the situation most easily by reference to an Amendment which was moved at an earlier stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers). He sought at an earlier stage to bring in an Amendment which would have enabled women to benefit from contributions made by their husbands provided that they were not more than 15 years younger than their husbands, and provided that the women themselves, as widows, had attained the age of 60 at the time when they were to benefit.
In answer to that, the right hon. Lady argued that it would be wrong to make such a change because if such a change were made the widows in question would be at a very considerable advantage in comparison with spinsters who, on attaining the age of 60, would themselves have to go on working in order to earn those increments. This is a very complicated part of the Act, but it seems to me that by refusing that Amendment the right hon. Lady is placing these widows at a disadvantage in comparison with spinsters, because at the age of 60 these widows will not then be in a position to earn the increments for themselves.
6.0 p.m.
If I am right, this is the kind of situation which would arise. To take a possibly limited case, but nevertheless a clear one, let us see what happens where the husband is exactly 10 years older than his wife. The husband contributes for five years after he has attained the age of 65 and then dies, at the age of 70. The widow is then 60. She benefits in no way from the contributions which her husband has made for those five years and, so far as I can see, under the Act she is not in a position, if she goes out to work at the age of 60, to earn the increments herself. If that is so, then it seems that this is a grave injustice which


ought to be corrected. It is obvious that this will not affect a great many women, but nevertheless it is something which ought to be corrected.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a highly complex Amendment. Probably very few hon. Members appreciate the intention behind it. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman seeks to deal with those cases where a man predeceases his wife, after having worked for, say, two years beyond pensionable age and so earned four increments. Let us assume that he dies at 67, having worked from 65 to 67 and earned four increments. Let us assume that his widow is 58. She does not benefit from any increments because she is under 60, and I gave the reason for that during the Committee stage, as the hon. Gentleman has already said.
But he now suggests that When she reaches the age of 60 she should be allowed to work to the extent of earning increments equivalent in number to those which her husband earned—but only equivalent in number. At 60 she would not be allowed to work to 65 and earn the full number of increments. I understand that she is to earn only the equivalent in number to those earned by her husband. I cannot understand why he decided on that.
The hon. Gentleman says he has framed the Amendment very carefully, and it is quite clear that on the Committee stage I impressed him with my argument that it was rather unfair to spinsters to allow a woman to have increments accruing to her before the age of 60—increments which her husband earned after he was 65; and the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Having accepted it, he then says, "Let her start working at 60 and earn increments." The spinster would start at 60, if she wished, to earn increments, and he says that it would be fair to spinsters to allow the widow also to start at 60.

Mr. Macpherson: Perhaps I may clear this up. The right hon. Lady has taken a case where the widow is 58. Supposing the widow starts working at 58. Is she or is she not entitled to earn increments when she gets to 60?

Dr. Summerskill: If she is a widow who has been insured under her husband's insurance, she cannot earn increments. She can earn increments only if she is insured in her own right, and those increments commence at 60. The position at the moment is that if a man works after 65, and his wife had already reached the age of 60, he can then earn increments in his own right and also increments for her right; but the amounts are different. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the widow should be allowed to start working at 60 and to earn increments in her own right because her husband died before he had been able to earn his full amount of increments. That is the proposition.
First of all, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that this would be a complete departure from a principle which is embodied in the scheme—that a woman should benefit from her husband's insurance or from her own. The hon. Gentleman comes along with a rather ingenious scheme which aims at combining the two but, as I am sure the House will realise, it is possible to sit back and think out all sorts of combinations of the most intricate kind.
The hon. Gentleman has forgotten this: while the man who has earned increments for his widow has continued working after 65, he has surrendered his pension. It is conditional on the earning of increments that the pension should not be claimed. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree with me there. When the spinster at 60 decides to earn increments for herself, she is not entitled to claim a pension either. But the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the widow at 60 should first, claim her widow's pension, and secondly, claim the increments that her husband has already earned for her—

Mr. Macpherson: No.

Dr. Summerskill: I presume she would not refuse. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that she will refuse her husband's increments, why should she go on working for increments in her own right? He suggests, therefore, that at 60 she should be in a position to claim her widow's pension; she should also be in a position to claim the increments earned by her husband; and she should also begin earning increments for herself.
I believe he accepted my argument about spinsters and agreed that it was not fair that increments should accrue to the woman at 50. The spinster has to start working for them at 60. I ask him to examine what he is now proposing. At the age of 60, through no fault of her own, the spinster cannot claim a husband's pension, cannot claim increments earned by a husband for her, cannot claim a widow's pension and, as an insured worker, has to start earning increments in her own right.

Mr. Macpherson: May I reply to one point? As the Amendment is drafted, there is no possibility of the widow claiming increments earned for her by her husband. That is excluded by the Act, and it is to correct that position that this Amendment suggests that she should be enabled to go on working and to earn those increments which her husband has earned but to which she became disentitled because she was more than five years younger than her husband.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has got the basis of his argument all wrong. I know it is a most detailed problem. She can claim increments earned by her husband in his own right. There are two lots of increments. There are those earned by a man by his own work on account of himself and there are those earned on account of his wife.
The Amendment put down on the Committee stage was on this point: I was asked whether a man who worked after 65 could earn increments not only in his own right but for a wife who was under 60—who was in the fifties. That was the point. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be wrong. There was no question of her being entitled to increments which he had earned for himself. I am sure I am right in this, and I believe the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), who has studied this question, agrees with me.
I think perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) was under a misapprehension. If he had understood the position, perhaps he would not have put down the Amendment. What he is asking is that a married woman of 60 should have her widow's pension, and the ability to earn increments in her own right because of her husband's increments. That is as against the spinster

who has no pension from a husband, who does not claim her pension at 60, who has no increments from a husband, and has to earn increments in her own right. That, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, would create so many anomalies that it would not really be fair to accept the Amendment.
But let me remind him of this further anomaly. Let us think of the effect of accepting this Amendment on the man of 65 who is sick, who is unable to work, through no fault of his own, and earn increments for himself; who has a wife who has been caring for him—because he may have been bedridden. He dies, not having earned any increments. Then she goes out to work at 60 because possibly she may be in a difficult financial position. She has had a sick husband on her hands for years, but because her husband has not earned any increments she then is not entitled to earn increments. She would be working side by side with a woman of 60 whom the hon. Gentleman wants to be entitled to increments because her husband has earned them before her. So I think that on those grounds I must refuse to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the charming and patient way in which the Minister has explained this matter to the House—and it is an extremely complicated matter—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(INCREASED GUARDIAN'S ALLOWANCE.)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, at the end, to insert:
except in necessitous cases when an entry of sixteen shillings shall be substituted for the entry of twelve shillings.
This is not nearly so complicated, I am glad to say, as was the last Amendment. It is indeed, I think, a straightforward matter, and if the House will allow me I will quite briefly sketch the background to it. The House will remember—and I make no apology for it, for I have been rather persistent about this—that both on Second Reading and in Committee I urged that the guardian's allowance, which, under the parent Act of 1946, stood at 12s. a week, should be increased to 16s. a week. On Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry was good enough to say


that, on the face of it, it seemed to be a reasonable case, and he promised to look at it with sympathy.
When the Committee stage came along, I had an Amendment down to the effect that the guardian's allowance should be increased to 16s.; but there also appeared on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), an Amendment that that 12s. should be increased to 13s. 6d. After I had moved my Amendment, the hon. Gentleman moved his Amendment—that the increase should be only 13s. 6d.—and in his speech he said:
I discovered that the amount being paid by the Ministry of Pensions for an orphan is 13s. 6d. a week, and that must be related to the proposed new amount for guardians' allowances.
He went on to say:
…the new figure for guardians' allowances must be related to other payments of a similar kind being made for children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2116.]
Well, the House will recollect that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was accepted, and so at present we have in the Bill the figure of 13s. 6d. a week for the guardian's allowance. I want to see, as it says clearly in the Amendment, provision for that to be raised to 16s. a week in necessitous cases.
6.15 p.m.
What I ought to have remembered at the time—I have kicked myself ever since for not remembering it—was that the war orphans are entitled to clothing allowances, that those allowances are paid out of what I believe is called the King's Fund—or, at any rate, from other sources—and that they are administered by the Ministry of Pensions through its welfare organisation; so that the war orphan who is entitled to an allowance of 13s. 6d. can also, if he or she needs it, have access to clothing grants.
Those clothing grants which are available to the war orphans amount to a minimum of £6 a year in the case of children under five, which is equivalent to an extra 2s. 4d. a week; for children between the age of five and 10 the minimum clothing allowance is £8 a year, which is equivalent to an additional 3s. 1d. a week; and for children from the age of 10 up to the school leaving age there is a minimum clothing allowance of £10 a year, which is equivalent to 3s. 10d. a

week. So the war orphan already receiving 13s. 6d. a week will have available to it in necessitous cases—and I am including the minimum clothing allowance on a weekly basis—a minimum allowance equivalent to 15s. 10d. a week up to the age of five, a minimum of 16s. 7d. a week between the ages of five and 10, and a minimum of 17s. 7d. a week from 10 until the age when he leaves school.
That ought to be compared with the lot of the orphan child who is looked after by a guardian who will have only 13s. 6d. a week from birth until the end of his school career, and for whom there is no possibility of going to the King's Fund for clothing allowances. Neither is there—and I have confirmed this with the right hon. Lady before the Measure came before us—any statutory provision supplementing the weekly allowances of the guardians in respect of orphan children who are not war orphans. They cannot go to the National Assistance Board; they cannot have access to clothing allowances.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby advanced another argument against the increase of guardian's allowance to 16s. He said that that proposal would increase the guardian's allowance by 4s. a week, whereas the child allowance for normal insurance benefits was being increased, under the terms of this Bill, by only 2s. 6d. a week. I am sure he is much better at arithmetic than I am, and he will recognise at once that the increase of 2s. 6d. a week in respect of the first child from 7s. 6d. to 10s. is an increase, in fact, of 33⅓ per cent., that an increase in respect of all other children from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a week is, in fact, arithmetically an increase of 50 per cent.—and yet all that I was asking and all that I am asking now is that in the necessitous cases the guardian's allowance should be increased from 12s. to 16s., which is only 33⅓ per cent.
I make only one further point. I am not quite sure that it is a good one, but it occurs to me. The position, before the Bill, of a widow with one child was that she got 26s. a week plus 7s. 6d. for that child. If she were to die the allowance of 12s. a week would be paid to the guardian in respect of that child. The mother's worth to that child was really assessed at 12s. a week, less 7s. 6d., namely, 4s. 6d. I take a case under the


present Bill. A widow is in receipt of 30s. a week for herself and 10s. for a child. If she dies, an allowance of 13s. 6d. is made in respect of the child to the child's guardian, so that the mother's worth to that child, for some obscure reason which I cannot understand, has dropped by a shilling from 4s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. under the present Bill.
Twice already in this House I have made the case of the difficulties which these guardians of children who are not their own are having in maintaining them with food and clothing on 12s. a week, and I do not really think it is good enough to say that it is right that the amount should be made up only to 13s. 6d.—because that is what the war orphans receive—because in those cases they have available to them a clothing allowance which the others have not. That is the whole point of my Amendment, and I feel that there are very strong reasons why it should be accepted.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) on his persistence in this matter. The cases which he quoted on the earlier stages of the Bill were also brought to my attention, because one of the children concerned happened to live in my constituency. I am very glad to be allowed to second this Amendment as a second-best proposal.
I am sorry that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was accepted on the Committee stage, because it seems to me that, on the case which my hon. Friend has made, 16s. is the right figure, rather than 13s. 6d. which is the figure now in the Bill. The point that my hon. Friend made about the clothing allowance was not adequately appreciated by anybody, including the Front Bench opposite, when the Amendment for the small amount was accepted.
I would quote the case of a girl in my constituency. Although there is no official means of supplementing the present 12s. guardian's allowance, in fact, the children's officer is in some way giving a supplementation—I suppose from National Assistance funds—of 7s. 6d. per week, plus 1s. a week pocket money, so

that in this particular case at the moment—whether it is legal or not, I do not know, but it is probably done in the interests of humanity and decency—the girl, who is in the care of an aged grandmother, herself an old age pensioner, has been receiving up to recently 19s. 6d. per week, which is considered to be the minimum reasonable standard by the children's officer for the County of Angus. Our proposal for 16s. is very reasonable indeed, particularly when one realises that the clothing allowance is given in addition to this allowance.
Therefore, I support this Amendment as a second best. I realise that even this Amendment does not go the whole way, but at least I hope the Government will agree to it, because it deals only with cases of necessity. However, in defining the word "necessity," I hope it will not be confined only to people who are in work, because there are other cases. One of these was quoted by my hon. Friend to show that the guardian of a boy was finding it difficult to buy clothes in order to send the child to school. That is how the case arose originally, because the guardian was telling the education authorities that he could not send the child to school because he could not clothe him. Even though that was a case of a man who was in work, it should, in my opinion, be regarded as necessitous, and should be covered by this Amendment.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), was good enough to refer to the Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage and to suggest that the amount of 13s. 6d., which was the amount mentioned in my Amendment, which was agreed to, was not enough and should be replaced by the higher amount of 16s., which of course was the sum which he included in his Amendment at the time when both were being debated during the Committee stage.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: In necessitous cases.

Mr. Houghton: I will come to that in a moment.
Perhaps the chief merit of the Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage was that it was accepted by the Minister and agreed to by the Committee. However, having got 13s. 6d., I am quite


willing to join with the hon. Gentleman opposite in trying to get more. I am sure that the position of the orphan is one which claims the special sympathy of the House. Orphans are, of all beneficiaries under the National Insurance scheme, a helpless, but happily not numerous, group, but nevertheless a group of persons claiming our especial sympathy, and we are all anxious to do the very best we can for them.
I did not think that the hon. Gentleman's excursion into the mathematics of the proposed changes in the Bill helped him very much, because there is, as he will readily agree, no standard percentage increase in the benefits. We find that 4s. is added to 16s. in the case of a wife, that 4s. is added to 26s. in the case of a single person or of a husband in the case of a married couple, and there is obviously no uniform percentage increase, so that I scarcely think that the hon. Gentleman can rely wholly on that kind of argument in support of an increase from 13s. 6d. to 16s.
My difficulty about the Amendment is that it seems to me to introduce into the National Insurance scheme a new principle, which, so far as I am aware, is not there now. The Amendment says "except in necessitous cases." I do not know of any benefit under the National Insurance Act which depends upon proof of necessity or need, and I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that, in order to achieve his purpose, he is making a proposal embodying an entirely new principle which raises a whole host of administrative problems for the Ministry, which we all desire to avoid. I do not think, therefore, that his Amendment can meet the case, and with great regret I cannot support it for that very reason.
All I can do is appeal to the Minister to see whether there are any means by which she can pay the orphans under the National Insurance scheme on the same basis as, or as near as possible to, the orphans under the war pensions scheme. After all, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the clothing allowances, which, as I understand the matter, are given conditionally upon certain circumstances being present in those cases, and it is possible that clothing allowances which are given to war orphans come out of entirely different funds from those of

the substantive pensions. If there are any means whereby the National Assistance Board can come to the help of necessitous cases, that surely would achieve the purpose of the Amendment and, indeed, would literally fulfil the purpose which the hon. Gentleman had in moving it. I do make that appeal.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to make one or two remarks on this Amendment. First, I think that most hon. Members feel that guardians are in these days in very great difficulties. We have great sympathy with the feelings which led the hon. Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), to move this Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was accepted and the guardians got a certain increase. That increase today, as I think most hon. Members will agree, is unfortunately not enough, and we would welcome any suggestion that might be made to increase it.
The second point is that this particular Amendment deals only with necessitous cases. As has been pointed out, that would introduce into the Act a new principle. I would point out to the right hon. Lady that, of course, the great difficulty of many guardians is that the National Assistance Board, which normally deals with a particular necessitous case, is often unable to help. I do not say always, but in a great many cases it cannot give National Assistance.
It has also been mentioned that there may be cases where the guardian is in employment but nevertheless has great difficulty in supporting the children. This may not be the proper time to deal with that matter, but it is an important matter, and I should like to draw it to the Minister's attention. There are, no doubt, at the moment many people who have seriously to consider whether they can continue to act as guardians and keep the children, or whether, in view of the rising prices and other difficulties, they may not have to send them to institutions. That is a matter which, I think, would cause concern to every hon. Member. While I see the difficulty of accepting this particular Amendment, I would very much welcome it if the right hon. Lady could give some indication that she is aware of


this problem and that it might be possible to meet it in a different way.

Mr. Messer: I want to reinforce what has been said in regard to the danger of introducing into an insurance Measure a test of such complexity as this would be. In the first place, who is to give a definition of what is a necessitous case? That is the first administrative difficulty. I have sat on public assistance committees and had the unenviable task of having to help in the assessment of need, and I know that neighbouring assistance committees have had an entirely different idea of what is a necessitous case to that which I have had. I do not know how the officers of the Ministry would be able to get anything like a standard that could be applied.
But that is not the important thing. The important thing is that for the first time we are being asked to introduce a new principle into what is a statutory benefit and to make the benefit available only according to individual needs. That departure from the right of the individual to a stated amount is more important than the slight increase that would be granted. If the hon. Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) had not put into the Amendment the qualification of necessitous cases, I think that he would have gained more support for the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chair would not have called the Amendment unless it had been different from the one which I moved in Committee.

Mr. Messer: The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity, at any rate, of presenting one or two points. It will be remembered that when the Act was going through as a Bill, we discussed in Committee at some length the guardian's allowance, and time after time the Minister, whom everyone recognises as being most generous in his intentions, pointed out that it was undesirable to make the allowance too high, because it was undesirable to attract people into guardianship, and that it would be better to assist those who, without some assistance, would find it difficult to act as guardians to these orphans.
It was felt that, in the main, guardians should be relatives; then they would not be people who were acting as guardians

simply because they were getting paid for doing so. I think that there is a difference between the guardian's allowance under this Act and the allowances paid to foster parents of boarded-out children by the public assistance committees. Because of that difference, I cannot think that the Amendment will be accepted, but I would say that if a figure of 13s. 6d. or 12s., or whatever it is, was right at the time when the cost of living was less than it is now, there is justification for an increase, but it ought to be an increase without any question of a test of necessity.

Miss Ward: I support the Amendment. I have listened with great interest to the arguments used by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) against the Amendment. For some reason or another, he seemed to regard 4s. as the magic figure in this Bill. I do not think that in legislation we should be guided by any specific number but by justice.

Mr. Houghton: May I suggest to the hon. Lady that I was not placing any magic on the figure of 4s. Rather I was saying that there was no magic about 4s.

Miss Ward: My interpretation of what the hon. Gentleman said was that he thought that 4s. was the sum which a certain section of the community had got under this Bill and, therefore, that figure must not be departed from. I do not think that the Amendment should be discussed from that point of view. It must be discussed from the point of view of what is fair to the orphans.
I listened also to the other argument which the hon. Gentleman used, and to the half-muted cheers of his supporters when he argued that my hon. Friend's Amendment introduced into the Bill a new principle which was unacceptable. I imagine that that is the view that all of us would take, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, those who are familiar with Parliamentary procedure know that if one wants to have an Amendment called on Report stage it must differ from the original Amendment.
If there is any difficulty about this, I suggest that the right hon. Lady should accept the principle of 16s. as opposed to 13s. 6d. and that that increase should be added in another place. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend would accept such an offer with alacrity and be prepared to withdraw his Amend-


ment. Nothing annoys me more than the rather high approach which has been made to this problem, as if everyone were being wise, when I am sure they know perfectly well why my hon. Friend had to introduce this new principle into the Amendment.
There is one other thing which I should like to have on the record. With a certain amount of pride, which he was justified in taking because he was quite clever about, the matter, the hon. Member for Sowerby referred to the fact that his original Amendment had been accepted and that he got the credit for it. I wonder whether, when he went to his division, he stated that the 13s. 6d. was less than the original Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. Therefore, I get back to arguing that in the interests of the orphans it is of very great importance that we should endeavour to persuade the right hon. Lady to accept this Amendment.
There is one aspect which has not been stressed. I know all about the arguments about the National Assistance Board, but I would point out that the money from the National Assistance Board comes directly out of the Exchequer, whereas the increased guardian's allowance would come from the Insurance Fund. If I remember the debate accurately, it was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Fund has quite a large surplus. Therefore, it would seem to be better from the point of view of the national finances if the extra charge for the orphans were borne by the Fund rather than by Exchequer funds, which are so badly needed for other very important matters.
There are all sorts of ways of looking after orphans. I remember very clearly the case that was quoted by the hon. Member when he introduced his original Motion, that when there are relatives in families prepared to accept the additional responsibility of looking after and caring for an orphan, it is a much better thing to help them to look after such an orphan rather than talk about getting additional funds from the National Assistance Board. As a matter of equity and justice, having regard to the considerable sums of money that are spent on children at approved schools, we ought to consider this question very seriously. Everybody is talking about looking after the adolescent and the

young children as well as giving them proper care and attention.
I was very surprised that the right hon. Lady, supported by her party, thought that 13s. 6d. is an adequate sum on which to bring up a hefty adolescent boy or girl. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is more than the hon. Lady's party gave."] I am sometimes led from the straight and narrow path, but in this matter I have such a good case for supporting the Amendment that I will not meet the challenge from the other side. I hope that the right hon. Lady will reconsider the position, and that, if she cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, she will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and see whether in another place some increase in this rather small sum can be made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): When we accepted the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) during the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), was very disappointed, but I admire the tenacity he has shown by moving a different kind of Amendment tonight. Very briefly I want to make two points on this Amendment without going into all the arguments he has raised.
The first of the two main objections is that the difference between 13s. 6d., as proposed in the Bill, and 16s., suggested in the Amendment, would be based upon necessity. That would be the equivalent of introducing a means test into the National Insurance scheme, and we do not propose to do that. The second point is that in our view it would be very undesirable to ask the statutory authorities to interpret the provision which is embodied in the Amendment. For these two main reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Miss Ward: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the point I raised about taking up the matter in another place? He spoke to his brief without having listened to the arguments.

Mr. Taylor: I did not speak to any brief, but in reply to arguments.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the hon. Member answer the point I made about the clothing allowance for war orphans, because that clothing allowance is not available to the ordinary non-war orphans? That is a most important point.

Mr. Taylor: I believe that it is the case that the clothing allowance comes from a voluntary organisation known as the King's Fund. It is not met by the Ministry of Pensions as such, and we felt, in accepting this figure of 13s. 6d., that if it were fixed at a higher rate anomalies would be created.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: But the anomalies are surely there. Indeed, the fact that the war orphan gets 13s. 6d. plus the necessitous—

Mr. Speaker: This is not the Committee stage but the Report stage and the hon. Member can make only one speech. We cannot have him interrupting all the time.

Mr. Viant: I do not think that either side of the House is in any way unsympathetic to the purpose of this Amendment. We should all be pleased if at the present time we could concede the demands made in the Amendment, but we have to remember that we are dealing with a scheme in which the benefits have been decided by the actuaries, who are responsible for seeing that the Bill is made watertight and is so framed as to meet the lengthy demands made upon it. If we depart from that, we are likely to enter into difficulties.
When the word "necessitous" is brought into the matter, let us remember that immediately we embark upon that road we throw over the advice of the actuaries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has already asked, who is going to define necessitous cases? I, for one, should oppose anything of that nature being introduced into the ordinary Bill. We have already got the Assistance Board established, and they are empowered to deal with cases of that kind. We should be satisfied with the fact that the Minister has gone as far as she can, and we should be prepared to accept such concessions as have been given.

Amendment negatived.

Title

Amendments made: In line 5, leave out from "Act," to "for," in line 6.

In line 14, after "earnings," insert:
for relaxing the conditions for an increase of sickness benefit or a retirement pension under the said Act in respect of a wife engaged in gainful occupation."—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but before the Bill passes to another place some comment should, I think, be made from these benches about the part which the Front Bench opposite has or has not played in the discussion of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to be the joint architects of our National Insurance scheme. I have been wondering during today's debate, as I did during the Committee stage, whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have resigned from that position. I am sure that we all expected this afternoon to hear from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), what the attitude of His Majesty's Opposition is towards the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: That matter has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill. We are now concerned with what is in the Bill and not with anything outside the Bill. We are not concerned with what the attitude of any party is to the Bill. The Third Reading discussion must be related to what is in the Bill and to nothing else.

Mr. Houghton: If I cannot pursue that point, I wish to draw attention to one or two aspects of the Bill which should receive the attention of His Majesty's Government.
In its original form the Bill proposed to differentiate in the amount of pensions between men who had reached the age of 70 and women who had reached the age of 65. In the Bill as now amended that differentiation, while not affecting those who reach or have reached pensionable age by the appointed day, will apply to those who reach it after the appointed day. Therefore, instead of the perpendicular line of demarcation which the original Clause 4 proposed to draw


between retirement pensions present and future, we have a horizontal line drawn straight across at the appointed day, dividing those who reach pensionable age into two distinct categories. They are those who reach that age before the appointed day and those who reach it after the appointed day. To those who reach it before, a higher rate of pension becomes payable, if they satisfy the other conditions of the Act. Those who reach pensionable age after the appointed day are to get only the rate of pension prescribed in the parent Act, except that the Bill proposes to give more liberal increases of pension to those who postpone their retirement.
I wish to emphasise the problems to which this differentiation is bound to give rise, and to urge my right hon. Friend to consider what should be done to meet them. It is not enough merely to leave the Bill as it stands without considering the consequences, and the anomalies and difficulties to which it will give rise, and to let the Bill go to another place without any supplementary action. I desire to stress once more the need for looking at all the social and industrial conditions which must now be linked with an entirely new principle in the application of our National Insurance scheme. I am not dissenting from the principle of differentiation. I supported it—I will be quite honest with the House—from the very outset. I believe there is an imperative need to combine two things: first, to meet the greater needs of older persons; second, to encourage the younger who reach pensionable age to continue at work for as long as they can.
With an ageing population, the future holds grave anxieties for Chancellors of the Exchequer, whosoever they may be. It contains serious anxieties for the standard of life of our people, because the number of people reaching pensionable age will steadily but surely increase. We may reach the position where we have a largely increasing number of retirement pensioners and either a static or even a diminishing number of productive workers. That is something which we cannot ignore in looking to the future of the National Insurance scheme. Therefore, I think that the principles of the Bill were really sound to begin with, although we are bound to admit that many persons

who had actually retired from work would find it difficult to re-enter employment. There was great strength in the argument that those who have retired, in the expectation that they would get whatever benefits were to accrue to those entitled to them under the National Insurance scheme, were entitled also to complain that something had been sprung upon them.
Their position has been met, but I am sure that the House will fully appreciate that we have only postponed the impact of the anomalies and difficulties between those who will get the lower rate of pension later and those who are to get the higher rate of pension now. Therefore, this new principle, for which I think there is strong need in present circumstances and will be necessary for years to come, a far as we can foresee, is designed to encourage people to remain at work for as long as they can. We have to adjust our insurance scheme, our vocational and superannuation schemes, and the conditions of retirement The whole structure of industrial employment must take into account the need for allowing people to work longer, not necessarily in the job in which they have been trained all their lives, but perhaps in a new job.
The Minister of Labour must soon begin to consider whether he should employ all the methods and experience which has been gained in connection with the rehabilitation of disabled persons as a means of encouraging or facilitating the continued employment of persons who otherwise would retire. It is a very big social and economic problem. It is the background to the Bill, the Third Reading of which we are about to pass. I hope that the aspects of the matter to which I have referred will be borne in mind, and that no time will be lost before considering all the implications of the Bill which we are now sending to another place.

7.0 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I have no intention of making a long speech on the Third Reading. I believe that the Bill has been debated exhaustively. The business has been expedited because I have been conscious of the good will which has exuded from both sides of the House—perhaps sometimes it was only comparative good will. I only want to say a word or two to my hon. Friend the Member for


Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who has been very helpful during these discussions.
I am sure that he and all hon. Members realise that this is an interim Measure and that I have only attempted to improve certain benefits. I believe that it is agreed that I have not attempted to alter the main principles of the Bill, but the time must come when we shall have to look at the whole thing again. I should like to be the one who looks at it, but politics being what it is I do not suppose I shall be. Whenever that time comes, all the suggestions which I have received from both sides, and which I have been unable to accept, will be carefully examined.
We have, during the passage of the Bill manifested that common sense which is a British characteristic, and have arrived at a compromise which I think has been accepted by both sides. It will be necessary to introduce certain regulations, but these will for the most part be regulations of detail and I do not believe that they will for one moment cause any controversy. I am sure that all hon. Members want the Bill to come into operation as soon as possible, and therefore I ask them to exercise some forbearance in respect of these regulations.
We shall follow the negative Resolution procedure. I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that Prayers have no terrors for me. I am not asking hon. Members not to put down a Prayer if they have desires to do so. If they think it is necessary, let them pray and I will answer them; but if we are to bring the Bill into operation quickly—some of the provisions will come into operation soon after the Royal Assent, other important provisions on 1st September, and, I can assure the hon. Members, the rest on 1st October—well before the General Election—we must adhere to our timetable.
For that reason I ask both sides of the House to co-operate with me in that matter as they have co-operated in the passage of the Bill. We want the people who will benefit under the Bill to have that benefit as soon as possible.

7.2 p.m.

Miss Ward: I am glad the Bill is on its way towards the Statute Book because I know that a great many of the additional benefits which it brings will give

a measure of real relief and satisfaction. I noticed with very great interest that the right hon. Lady said that she is delighted to answer prayers. That is rather tempting fate—

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady must not misinterpret me. I am not "delighted" to answer Prayers. I do not like sitting up late at night; but Prayers hold no terrors for me.

Miss Ward: I thought that the right hon. Lady meant to say that she answered prayers in the proper sense. I was thinking of something quite different from what she had in her mind. In any event, I am sure that we should all like to congratulate her on the competent way in which she has conducted the Bill. She has been very helpful and very efficient, and I am sure that she will be very glad to have some of the concessions embodied in the Bill and secure from the Chancellor.
I should like one outstanding point to be clarified. We have heard that the benefits in this service are actuarially calculated. That is a principle of sound insurance with which none of us would disagree, but I am puzzled about it because, if that is so, I cannot understand why the right hon. Lady did offer these concessions when the original provisions for old age pensioners were introduced. If the fund is able at any time to carry increased benefits to people who need them, those increases ought to be given. I am a little surprised that, earlier, the right hon. Lady withheld the benefits which are now being given under the Bill, because they must now be actuarially possible or she would not be embodying them.
Why did not the right hon. Lady introduce these provisions in the first place? Is she holding money up her sleeve in order to give concessions when pressure is applied? If not, why could not these provisions have been embodied in the original Bill? I have no doubt that there is a very good answer. The right hon. Lady has made her speech, and I shall not press her to answer that point, but I want her to know that it has not escaped my examination of the Bill. Whenever an investigation is undertaken in the future I shall be watchful to see what improvements can be effected. I do not want to be unduly controversial.


and I congratulate the right hon. Lady, and I hope that those who will benefit under the Bill will feel that, in getting a stable fund, we have gone a little way along the road towards meeting some of the problems of those who draw benefits.

Dr. Summerskill: Dr. Summerskill rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady has already spoken. She can only speak again by leave of the House.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to ask the leave of the House to speak again to answer the hon. Lady's question, which was a rather pointed one. I have a good answer to it. When the fund was originally established, it was assumed that there would be 8 per cent. of unemployment in this country. Fortunately for the country we have had a Labour Government, with the result that 8 per cent. of unemployment has not been realised. We have had only 2 per cent. of unemployment—sometimes less than 2 per cent.—with the result that the fund is in a healthy condition and we can now give the extra benefits.

Miss Ward: Before the right hon. Lady sits down—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has already spoken. She can only speak again by leave of the House.

Miss Ward: Surely the procedure of saying "Before an hon. Member sits down" is very often adopted in the House?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have objected before. I do not like this cross-examination on the Report stage or the Third Reading. One can only rise to speak again by leave of the House, and not by any other means.

Miss Ward: Might I, as the right hon. Lady did, ask the permission of the House to ask a question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. Speaker: Apparently, leave is not given. Mr. Shurmer.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Shurmer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and thank her for the concessions, but I still believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said, that when the Bill

comes into operation there will be many difficulties and anomalies. I should like to express my sorrow that it has not been possible to fix the appointed day much earlier. Many of us have been in touch with the old age pensioners during the Recess. In some areas there are means of getting in touch with them. In Birmingham we have a number of homes of rest where I have met some of them. I have found that they have been delighted that we have been able to increase the benefit, but, rather strangely—no party and no Government could have prevented it—since the introduction of the Bill the cost of living has risen very rapidly.
Increases of ½d., 1d., 2d. and 3d. on things have come along, but the old age pensioners have to wait until the "appointed day." These old people are already finding things very hard. On the other hand, people in employment are asking for increases in wages, and in some cases are getting them, to cope with the increased cost of living. I wish that my right hon. Friend could set the appointed day much earlier, because the old age pensioners will suffer very badly in the interval before 1st September.
There is as yet no increase in Assistance Board scales. It will be of no use, therefore, to tell a pensioner to go to them when their scales are laid down for the interval until any increase is effective in the old age pension. The extra pennies and twopences, and even more, on the cost of commodities which they need to purchase will debar old age pensioners from many things.
Many of the old age pensioners to whom I have talked are, however, thankful and realise that they are far better off today under a Labour Government, even if the cost of living has gone up since 1938. I doubt whether they would be getting as much as they are now receiving if the party opposite were in power. Nevertheless, they are still suffering. I do not altogether blame the right hon. Lady and her Department, for I appreciate the difficulties which have to be overcome. I must, however, express my sorrow that the old folk must wait another three months, still continuing to pay the extra pennies and twopences for the things they purchase, until they get the increased pension.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was glad that the right hon. Lady, at this last stage of the Bill, re-emphasised what she said on Second Reading—that it was of the nature of an interim Measure—and I believe that a consideration of the changes of principle which the Bill introduces into the insurance scheme reinforces that view. The Bill, for the first time within the framework of the National Insurance scheme, recognises the fact that the retirement pensions now being paid are already below the minimum which is necessary to maintain a possible standard of living. There has, of course, already been a recognition of that fact indirectly through the alteration in the assistance rates.
The effect of this recognition within the insurance scheme is that there will henceforth be three types of retirement pension. In putting these three types forward, I am ignoring as purely transitional the effect of the Amendment which was made to the Bill upon the Minister's Motion this afternoon on Report stage. There will be a retirement pension, subject to means test, between 65 and 66½ years of age, because no person wishing to retire at 65 or before 66½ and having no other means will be able to do so without proving need to the Assistance Board and obtaining a supplement. That is the first type of retirement pension which results: between the ages of 65 and 66½, subject to means test.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Needs test.

Mr. Powell: Subject to needs test. Then, between 66½ and 70, there will be a retirement pension conditional upon retirement, composed of the old basic rate plus the increment. Finally, there will be the retirement pension, without condition, after 70 years of age at the new basic rate.
That effect which the Bill has is a change of principle, and an important one. For the first time it brings the principle of the needs test, or the means test, into the retirement pension. A little while ago, great distaste was being expressed upon both sides of the House to the idea of the means test being brought

into the Bill in a very minor matter; but the means test is already in the Bill in an essential matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that the hon. Member will use the correct expression of "needs test," because those of us who have had many years' experience—this applies also to the hon. Member—know that there is a fundamental difference between a means test and a needs test.

Mr. Powell: I do not want to enter into the many meanings which "means test" or "needs test" can have—whether it means the "household means test" or the "personal means test" and so on. I was naturally using the expression in the sense of the personal means test, and if the hon. Member will accept it in that way, perhaps he will forgive me for any slip of the tongue which there may have been.
In introducing the means test into the principle of the retirement pension, if only between the ages of 65 and 66½, we are making a most important change. It is a change which is likely to go further, because—and make no mistake about this—as the value of money continues to fall, in so far as it continues to fall, that age band, which at present is between 65 and 66½, will broaden, and the principle of the means test, having made this narrow intrusion, having inserted this thin end of the wedge, will thereafter broaden. We shall thereby be blurring two quite different principles which, I am sure, most hon. Members on both sides want to keep quite separate: the principle of insurance and the principle of assistance. By the Bill, we are bringing those two principles nearer together, and that is a dangerous position into which to be forced.
A second result of this change of principle—for such I believe it to be—is that it reflects, and will increasingly reflect, upon the principle of compulsory contributions. It is one thing to say to every citizen, "You shall contribute to our insurance scheme, for that insurance scheme is going to provide you unconditionally with a certain pension at a certain age." It is a very different thing to say to him, "You must subscribe to this scheme, but of course when you come to need it you will then have to go to the Assistance Board and prove need before you can get the minimum sum


which you require." So we are breaking into the insurance principle and we are breaking into the compulsory principle by this apparently small shift which we are making by means of the Bill.
The conclusion which I draw is that the urgency of the review of the National Insurance scheme, which is due at present in 1954, is greatly increased by the fact that we have passed this Bill. I hope that steps will be taken to bring that review forward, so that it can be carried out as soon as possible.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I did not intend to speak until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who emphasised that the Bill introduces a new principle relating to the needs test. The hon. Member is entirely wrong, and I should like him to tell me of any part of the Bill which introduces a needs test or a means test of any kind. As far as this principle is concerned, the Bill in no way changes the existing position. Any number of old pensioners previously receiving a pension had to go to the National Assistance Board and undergo the so-called needs test. Therefore, if, in future, a pensioner finds mat his pension is not sufficient, he merely has to do the same as was done under earlier legislation.
Pensions introduced in this Bill do not meet the minimum needs of pensioners. That is shown by the fact that the National Assistance Act and the National Assistance regulations go far beyond the pensions. When the Bill is implemented an aged pensioner can draw 50s. for himself and his wife, but if the National Assistance scales are amended on the lines suggested, that couple can apply for assistance and, in addition to the 50s. pension, they can get rent and many other things. As a Government we are recognising that the pension as such is not sufficient to meet the needs of the aged people. That is why, behind it, there is the National Assistance Act, which gives them a much higher income if they need it. All they have to do is to apply for it. What we want to publicise is that there is no change in the principle of the Bill compared with that of the regulations.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I find this Bill very disturbing because I believe it offends against an important principle of insurance. The right hon. Lady, in a short intervention, talked of the concessions she had won from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but surely what the Bill does is to take the surplus in the Insurance Fund, now running at about £140 million a year, and the Chancellor is getting out—

Dr. Summerskill: I would like the hon. Member to withdraw that, because I made no such statement.

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Lady did not make it, I withdraw, but I have it on my note. I am sure she would not contradict that she said that the reason why she could make this general provision was that thanks to a Socialist Government, unemployment was 2 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. Therefore, although she could not give the concession when the Bill was first introduced, she is able to give it now. Be that as it may, other hon. Members have spoken of concessions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whereas the surplus which is running at £140 million a year is being dispersed at the order of the Chancellor; £46 million a year of that is to go back to the contributors to the Insurance Fund and the remainder is to go to the benefit of the Exchequer. That seems to offend the whole principle of the Beveridge Plan and the Insurance Act of 1946.
There may be two conceptions of National Insurance. I remember how actively in the Middle East we discussed the Beveridge Plan when it came out. There was an idea that the State should give assistance to those in misfortune and that assistance was to be aided by a contribution from those in a more fortunate position, namely, from contributors in work. That always seemed entirely wrong to me. It was the old system of the dole. The other conception, in which I believe, is that this social insurance is a solemn contract entered into by three parties, the State, the employer and the employee. It is a compulsory insurance and for that reason Parliament should be very chary about altering those proportions and certainly should only do so for sound insurance reasons. This is something quite different. The origin of this Bill is that the Chancellor of the


Exchequer wishes, for financial reasons, to have no surplus in that Fund.
It is all very well for hon. Members to talk, as I heard the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) talk, about it being the happiest moment of his life when the right hon. Lady made some concessions. The contributors were losing because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to rearrange the country's finances. If we alter the contributions the Bill should scale down contributions all round or, alternatively, if the Government want to get rid of the surplus they should put up the benefits. That may well have certain inflationary effects which the Chancellor wants to avoid, but the fair and right thing, if £90 million a year is to come out of the Fund, is for the employer, the employee and the Exchequer each to have a rebate of contributions.
It has been laid down ever since 1946 that the contributions to the unemployment section of the Insurance Fund should be equal, an equal third from the Exchequer, an equal third from industry and an equal third from the employed man. As I read the figures and analyse this cutting down from 2s. 1d. to 1s. 4d., it means that in future half the contributions to unemployment insurance will come from the worker and half from the industry and the Chancellor will get off scot free.
This is a State Insurance scheme. If this had been done under a private insurance scheme—and we must remember there is a great number of contributors in this scheme who, before 1946, were voluntary contributors and had their remedy against an insurance company if it defaulted and tried to break a contract—the contributor could go to court and be paid damages for breach of contract or he would have other legal remedy. Under this scheme the only remedy is in Parliament and I am surprised that there have not been more hon. Members of all parties to object to the action taken by the Government in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers of the Minister of Fuel and Power to make advances to the National Coal Board for capital purposes, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Minister of Fuel and Power to make advances to the National Coal Board for defraying their capital expenditure, so, however, that the aggregate amount of the principal outstanding in respect of such advances shall not at any time exceed three hundred million pounds, and any such advance shall be subject to the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, for the making by the said Board of payments to the said Minister of interest on such advances and in repayment thereof;
(b) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid or of providing for the replacement of the sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in whch they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939;
(c) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums paid by the said Board to the said Minister in respect of interest on such advances as aforesaid and in re payment thereof, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as aforesaid and the application of sums so issued, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or repayment of debt or, in so far as they represent interest, in the payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

Resolution agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BUTCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE ADVANCES TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD, AND OF TEMPORARY BORROWING POWERS OF BOARD.)

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, page 1, line 18, to leave out "three hundred," and to insert "two hundred and fifty."
This is an exploratory Amendment and I hasten to say that we on this side of the Committee realise that in a Measure of this sort there must be a reasonable amount of borrowing facilities given to the Minister whoever the Minister may


be. Realising, as we do, that the life of Government is so uncertain and that Ministers may change, this Amendment could apply quite as strongly to a Minister of Fuel and Power who came from this side as to one from the other side of the Committee.
Under the Bill, the Minister is asking for £300 million now as a sum that may be outstanding at any one time and be borrowed by him without reference to Parliament. That is a big sum and we on this side of the Committee feel, and I think that on all sides it is felt—I do not want to be controversial at this stage—that a figure of that sort needs very careful consideration before it is agreed to, in view of the very large figure involved. During the last five years, when the maximum borrowing power was £150 million, the Minister found it necessary to borrow only £33 million net. We are now faced, between 1946 and 1951, with a figure of £300 million instead of £150 million.
7.30 p.m.
If in any figures I quote I misrepresent the Minister in any way, which I do not intend to do, in respect of the case which he put forward on Second Reading, I hope that he will interrupt me at any moment, because obviously if we go wrong on the actual arguments that have made the Minister ask for £300 million, we shall vitiate from beginning to end the whole argument in respect of this Amendment. Owing to an accident, I was unfortunately unable to be present at the Second Reading debate, but I have studied it closely. I understand that the Minister's justification for asking for £300 million is first that under the National Coal Plan a figure of £635 million is envisaged, of which it is considered that three-quarters should be found by the industry through depreciation. That means that the Ministry have to find £160 million apart from the other expenditure to which I shall shortly refer. So, under the Plan, they have to find £160 million.
I will now deal with the other figures which turn £160 million into £300 million. The Minister pointed out that first he must repay the moneys which were borrowed from sums which were set aside for future liabilities connected with workmen's compensation. We ought to know a little more about that. I think I am right in saying that the Minister

gave a rough estimate of £21 million for repayments in respect of these future contingencies, but he gave it only as a very rough figure. I think we have a right to know precisely how that £21 million should be split up.
That is not all, because beyond that the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, also said that an additional sum of money would be needed for working capital. I leave that aspect for a moment in order to deal with the figures on which he has been precise. We have the figure of £160 million. We have the Minister's figure of £21 million for future contingencies in respect of workmen's compensation, etc., which makes £181 million. Let us take the other figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He said that the £33 million already borrowed had to be repaid. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He said that on top of that, owing to the possibilities of inflation and rising costs, etc., although his precise figure would be £268 million, he wished to leave £32 million in hand in case there were rising costs. I shall deal later with the aspect of rising costs.
If these are his figures—£160 million on the Coal Plan plus £21 million in respect of workmen's compensation, plus £33 million which he has already had to borrow, the total comes to £214 million plus another £32 million for contingencies. That leaves £54 million for which the Minister is asking apparently for working capital. I do not know what the position is about that, but I do know that on the 1946 figures £24 million then appeared to be a reasonable figure for working capital. I know that prices have risen and that the pound has since then been devalued by His Majesty's Government, but I never like to exaggerate a case against His Majesty's Government. In fact, I prefer to understate it.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will consider it unfair, however, if I say that the value of the pound in comparison with 1946 has depreciated to about 16s. in 1951. I put it very moderately. That is to say that the £24 million required for working capital in 1946 will presumably be represented by a figure of about £30 million now. But why is the right hon. Gentleman asking for £54 million on working capital? He gave no explanation on Second Reading. There maybe some mysterious reason that


may have arisen in the meantime. My first two points are that we want to know how the figure of £21 million in regard to workmen's compensation liability in the future is obtained; and why we have so large a figure, apparently, as £54 million for working capital.
That is unfortunately not the whole story, because this figure of £300 million appears to us on this side of the Committee—and I do not think only to us on this side—to be very large, and for three reasons. I have already touched on the first, which is that during the last six years, while the Minister had power to borrow up to £150 million, he has borrowed only to the extent of £33 million net. But the other two reasons which I propose to adduce to the Committee are more important than the first one.
The second reason is that in the last year the general international situation has altered very greatly, and as a result of the alteration—[Interruption.]—my hon. Friend must not tempt me to deal with the international situation, or I shall make a very violent speech, which I do not intend to do. It seems to be extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to have any idea of the amount of steel which he is likely to obtain under present conditions for the requirements of the Coal Plan. What has happened during the last year or 18 months has knocked the National Coal Plan completely out of date.
We were told only two or three months ago by the Minister of Supply that there may be a shortage of steel during the next 12 months as a result of the rearmament programme. I think there will be. Added to that, steel has been nationalised in the meantime—but I must not be controversial; I merely state facts. While it would be improper for me to go into the matter, it is nevertheless the case that the Colombo plan, which we all welcome, means a further drain upon our steel resources. So we we are faced with the fact that what might have been obtained in the way of steel for the National Coal Board a year, eighteen months or two years ago, becomes extremely unlikely to be obtained in the years which lie ahead.
The Minister envisages soaring prices, and that is why he has allowed himself that £32 million over and above the £268 million he had in mind. Rising

prices, resulting from devaluation and the additional cost of re-armament, are surely almost impossible to calculate at the present time—in fact, I would say they are quite impossible to calculate. We are therefore faced with the situation that the figures which, without soaring prices and without re-armament, might have appeared not unreasonable for the National Coal Plan over the next 10 years, are today completely vitiated. In view of that, we are entitled to ask the Minister to answer a number of questions before he endeavours to borrow on so very large a scale.
I touched on steel. What, under rearmament, is to be the priority for steel for the mines? I question whether even the persuasiveness of the right hon. Gentleman—and he is very persuasive—will result in his finding that the steel needed for sinking new shafts, and so on, is very high on the priority list; and if it is not, the whole set-up of this Coal Industry Bill is knocked endways. The argument has been that the Minister must have power to borrow the £300 million in view of the fact that he needs to borrow rapidly. But if we are not to get the steel, the argument that he has to borrow big sums very rapidly disappears. It is a deplorable thing that it should be so, but we have to be realistic and we have to face the world situation as it is at present.
It is important that the Minister should give us a little further information regarding the sinking of new pits. If prices are to continue to rise at the rate at which they are rising at the present time, the right hon. Gentleman might not find it economical to sink anywhere near the number of new shafts which the Coal Plan envisaged. I know as well as he does that one of the vital essentials in the Reid Report was the sinking of new pits. I should be the last person to disagree with that, but the fact remains that even during the last five years the number of new shafts has not been enormous. I am not being controversial about it. I know it is said by hon. Members opposite that, after all, we may not have sunk as many new shafts as might have been expected but, at the same time, we have not been closing down pits, and so on. But that is irrelevant to the argument which I am putting forward.
It was stated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster), on Second Reading that if we compared the number of new shafts sunk between 1946 and 1951 with the number sunk in the 20 years between the wars, the figure would be somewhere about one-third. I do not know whether he was right or not, but I think the right hon. Gentleman should give us some indication of the proportion, because it would give us some idea as to the comprehensive plan of the Government in spending money in the sinking of new shafts in the years that lie ahead. If my hon. and gallant Friend is right, and the figure is about one-third of the average pre-war figure, it is likely that that figure will be reduced rather than increased.
7.45 p.m.
If we are not to have new shafts or the steel, what is the argument for increasing the £150 million to £300 million at the present time? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) was rather mocked at when he suggested on Second Reading that before a very large additional figure was embarked upon, the National Coal Board should consider disposing of a certain number of the non-coal assets which they had bought. He pointed out that the coal industry is nearly the biggest agricultural landlord in Britain. The figure of the Board's acreage is about 60,000.
Hon. Members opposite pointed out—and I always think we should consider arguments from both sides—that a good deal of this agricultural land was necessary for the Coal Board in order that they should avoid the payment of compensation for subsidence. I quite realise that the National Coal Board have to keep a good bit of agricultural land in the neighbourhood of pits for that purpose, but can it be said that it is necessary for the Board to become practically the largest landowner in the United Kingdom in order to do that?
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in the most friendly spirit, that by disposing of a reasonable proportion of the farms he possesses, amounting to some 18,000 or so, he could raise a few million towards his borrowings. I suggest also

that where the question of subsidence does not arise, if the National Coal Board—who are not terribly interested in agriculture except as a by-product—were to get rid of a good deal of the territory they own, it is conceivable that not only would they get money to put towards part of their borrowings, but that the land might be worked a little better than it is at the present time and a little more money put into it.
Having put forward those bald arguments which need answering, I would say that we have moved this Amendment in a very moderate way. We realise that borrowing has to be done on a considerable scale, in spite of difficulties over steel and increasing prices; but we suggest that the figure should be £250 million, and if the Minister goes above that figure he should have to come before Parliament to explain why it is necessary to go above a figure which is £100 million higher than the original figure of £150 million on which he borrowed only £33 million between 1946 and 1951. That would give us an opportunity of discovering whether, in fact, the extra borrowing was due to soaring prices, or whether there had perhaps been a little improvidence in the Ministry itself.
After all, we have learned over a period of time that no Ministers are entirely perfect. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman got drawn away by certain of his colleagues to expend the money, having got it with a blank cheque—because this is a blank cheque up to £300 million—

Mr. James Glanville: A lot of this money would not be required today if the private owners had done their duty in the past.

Mr. Raikes: I understood that one of the great advantages of nationalisation was that we were going to improve vastly upon the sort of thing done by the private owners. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not going to criticise me for endeavouring maybe to improve on the situation that existed before nationalisation, and to ensure that his Minister should be kept under closer control than was the case in past days?
I am not being controversial—at least, not more controversial than I can help—but if the Minister goes beyond the


£250 million and has to come to Parliament to ask for more, we shall only re-establish the principle of Parliamentary control over big sums. We are giving him a pretty big sum when we allow him £250 million at any one time before having to come to Parliament for more. Someone might whisper to him, "If you cannot get the steel, why not try an egg scheme, not in Gambia, but somewhere else?" Supposing he were allowed to try to do that without having to come to Parliament, would anyone consider that a good thing?
I suggest that in view of the present condition of the world, we are right to try to limit high borrowing, without, at any rate, some Parliamentary control which would ensure that if there were real improvidence it might be checked before it became disastrous. Such control would not be of a nature that would hamper a Minister, whether he came from the other side of the Committee or from this side.

Mr. Blyton: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) with great interest, and to his argument about Parliamentary control with particular interest. I wish he would address that argument to some of his friends who were recently at Strasbourg with me and who wanted to hand over the coal and steel industries of this country to a supranational Continental authority. Those same people are now arguing about one or two million pounds when, if they could have had their way, they would have handed the industry over to alien hands.
This Bill deals with the second part of the programme for the nationalised coal industry. It is as well to remember that it was brought in after the issue of the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Reid. The members of that Committee are well-known engineers, but they are not Socialists. I know one of them very well. We had many arguments with him as a coalowner. He was a good engineer, but he was not a Socialist. I will read an extract from that Report concerning capital expenditure. I think it ought to be read, because it gives some indication of what the friends of the Tory Party

thought the cost of this would be in relation to capital expenditure. On page 120, it says:
It is quite evident to us, from our study of the recent history of the industry, that a general failure to plan far enough ahead has, indeed, been one of the most obvious handicaps to which the British coal industry has been subjected. A vast programme of reconstruction of existing mines and the sinking of a number of new ones is now required, and the importance of avoiding the mistakes of the past, and of providing for the efficient lay-out of the underground workings and the orderly disposition of surface buildings, should need no emphasis.
In the words of that Report, we have got to plan far enough ahead in the British mining industry if we are to run that industry successfully.
Referring to capital expenditure, which is the issue we are debating tonight, the Report says:
For these reasons we do not consider that the information we have available is adequate to warrant an assessment of the total cost of reconstruction of the industry on the lines we have suggested in this Report; and we do not believe that the estimates which have appeared from time to time in the Press, and which have ranged from one hundred to three hundred million pounds, are capable of verification without a great deal of detailed work, and accurate information on a number of important factors which is not at present available.
It then proceeds to say:
All we feel justified in stating, therefore, is that the total cost will necessarily be very heavy, but that, on the other hand, it will be spread over a considerable number of years.
We are told by mining experts—and the Conservative Party have always regarded Sir Charles Reid as one of the most eminent—that unless we embark on huge capital expenditure, regarding which they could not define a figure, this industry could not be rebuilt. We are asking today that the borrowing power should be up to £300 million. Since the estimated figure given by the Press was published—a figure which Sir Charles Reid could not define—the cost of raw materials and mining machinery has enormously increased. That being so, we must agree to a reasonable figure of capital expenditure to cover that cost.
The hon. Member for Garston talked about £21 million for miners' compensation. Surely that sum is entitled to be paid over. After all, we took over the liabilities of the coalowners regarding the men injured in pre-nationalisation days and who were still disabled. Are they not entitled to their compensation?

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Gentleman must know, if he listened to my speech, that I never suggested that the £21 million should not be repaid. All I said about that sum was that it was given as rather a vague estimate by the Minister in his Second Reading speech on future contingencies which had been borrowed on for miners' compensation and other matters. I suggested it would be advisable that we should have quite clearly from the Minister the precise amount which had been borrowed for the future contingencies of miners' compensation and other matters. I never suggested it should not be paid, and I do not suggest that now.

Mr. Blyton: I was about to suggest that we on this side of the Committee would like to have a detailed report of the compensation paid to the coalowners. It is a charge on the industry. We have paid millions for mines that are now out of existence and for some shoddy stuff in various parts of the country. Therefore, it ill becomes the Opposition to argue about the question of £21 million in connection with workmen's compensation.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think the hon. Member is misleading the Committee. The point is that the Minister of Fuel and Power has taken this £21 million which was available for National Coal Board workmen's compensation and has used it for other purposes. He had no authority to do so and now is seeking authority to retain it.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I must make a correction. As I said on Second Reading, I have done nothing about it. This fund for workmen's compensation belongs to the Board. They have used it temporarily and, later, will themselves have to replace it. I have no authority in the matter. They have used it for capital investment, I think very rightly in the interest of the nation; they should use such internal resources as they have to finance themselves without adding to their borrowing.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Surely the Minister, before he authorises repayment of this money, will ask the Board under what authority they spent it for capital development.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We must make sure they are going to repay it to the compensation fund but I cannot think what they did was very improper in any way whatever; rather on the contrary. It was their money.

Mr. Blyton: We, the miners, are entitled to say that our people who were maimed and lamed in the days of private enterprise are to get compensation. If there is to be any dissection I suggest then that the compensation to the owners should be dissected as well.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: It is not worthy of the hon. Member to say people were killed under private enterprise, in the light of the terrible tragedy we have seen under the nationalised coal industry. Let us forget these dirty jeers about private enterprise.

Mr. Blyton: I do not want to get into controversy. Had not the question of workmen's compensation been raised by hon. Members opposite I would not have mentioned it. I advise hon. Members to go into the coalfields and find what the men said about the coal owners compensation committees in the old days of the Act dealing with compensation which was passed by the party opposite in 1924.
I want to impress upon the Minister that it is essential the Cabinet should recognise that whatever may be the claims of re-armament we cannot re-arm unless we get a sufficiency of coal to ensure that we obtain the weapons we need. When we took over the coal industry we had to face the fact that we were carrying uneconomic pits which were losing at the pithead. We took those over from private enterprise. They cannot be carried for ever, even under nationalisation. We must have new sinkings so that we can close uneconomic pits and can concentrate mining and re-organise it to secure all the coal to meet the needs of the nation.
As logically as I can, I press the Minister to make it understood to the Cabinet that if we are to have a successful re-armament policy we cannot do it at the expense of neglecting the mines and depriving them of the machinery needed to ensure the required coal production. During the last war the Government had to undertake capital expenditure to obtain machinery from America. Any amount of American machinery was brought in


to help in that war. In the present serious international situation when we have had to adopt a re-armament policy it is essential that the mining industry should obtain the spare parts and machinery to maintain output in the days ahead.
We ought to give the powers asked for in this Bill. We are asked to authorise the Coal Board to spend up to £300 million. In a long-term plan it is necessary that the National Coal Board should have capital to develop and modernise the pits. We need cleaning plants by the score and we need new sinkings. That means we must have new mining villages and houses. Therefore, a huge expenditure is involved in this national plan. The Reid Report says it was because the industry was denuded of capital in the inter-war years that British mining did not reach the level of technical efficiency which existed on the Continent. I ask tonight that we should not get back to those days and that we should give the Coal Board a sufficiency of capital to ensure the development of this industry in the days ahead.

Colonel Lancaster: If I may say so, I think that in the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) there was a mixture of rather wide rambling and a good deal of common sense. I do not think it is necessary to bring in the Schuman Plan or to make a point about the global sum of compensation. Not a fraction of that sum has been paid up and we are getting towards the fifth year of the period.
When the hon. Member got to the point of saying that in the light of re-armament requirements he hoped the industry would have a high priority, he was talking very good sense of course. But unless we as a Committee hear from the Minister that, in fact, he has that high priority and he can be assured of the steel and machinery required to carry out this capital expenditure I cannot see that the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) in moving this Amendment are not germane. It is asking more than that to which the Committee should be prepared to agree to ask that we should give the Minister a blank cheque to spend this very large sum of money without any assurance that he has any reasonable possibility of spending it

in the near future or during the decade that lies ahead.
I cannot claim to have the ability to assess this matter as precisely as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring claimed to be able to do. Three hundred million pounds is a very large sum of money. Whether the capital requirements may or may not amount to that, what we are concerned with is whether there is necessity for a blank cheque up to that amount straight, away at this moment. We feel very strongly that there is not that necessity, that Parliament should carry out its duties in this matter and that we should give what we consider a reasonable amount. No one can say that £250 million is not reasonable.
If the Minister finds he can spend at the rate of £300 million—and we all hope he can—then he can come back to Parliament to say, "Despite the doubts in the minds of hon. Members opposite when the matter was debated, I have had the priority and have been able to obtain the steel and machinery and the various requirements to make this capital expenditure a practical possibility. Therefore, I want the capital advance now to pay for this very large development and reconstruction plan."
I am certain that we on this side of the Committee would be only too anxious to meet the Minister in his reasonable requirements, but we are by no means satisfied that as the matter now stands a case has been made out for this very large amount. In consequence I strongly support my hon. Friend in his reasonable suggestion that we should cut this amount to a round figure of £250 million, with the assurance that if more is required the Minister should return to Parliament and make his claim which, as I say, I feel certain will be met by both sides of the House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. In the area which I have the privilege to represent I have never known the relationship between all sections of the mining industry to be better than it is today. Output is better than ever, and records are being made by pit after pit. I hope that uncertainty will not be introduced into an industry that has now proved itself. The nationalisation of the mining industry has already been


proved an overwhelming success by the concrete results that have been produced.

Mr. Nabarro: Did the hon. Member say "concrete"?

Mr. Smith: Yes. In our area large capital expenditure is at last taking place. New shafts are being sunk, and the mechanisation of other pits is being carried out. New machinery of all kinds is being introduced, resulting in a dynamic atmosphere that has never been known in the industry before.
Relatively speaking, the output of this area will have to increase at a greater rate than in any other area in the country. It will, therefore, be understood why I, for one, am very concerned at any proposal which introduces uncertainty. It is necessary that there should be the most complete and maximum confidence in the industry, and also that this industry that is now giving such good results should have the wholehearted support of every section of the community. Britain's success, in the main, is based upon the output of its mining industry. Up to now, although science has made great progress, we have not yet eliminated the need for using coal as the principal motive power in our country.
If we are to bring about an enormous increase in production, as some are hoping, so that we can maintain and even improve our standard of living, it is necessary that the maximum amount of capital should be sunk in the mining industry to secure the desired results by means of science and mechanisation instead of by the expenditure of human energy as has been the case in the past. Therefore, it would have been wrong for those of us who represent mining areas to have accepted proposals for introducing uncertainty into this industry.
8.15 p.m.
There is another aspect about which we are bound to be concerned. Anyone who has studied the national plan must realise that old shafts and old pits will have to be closed when it is no longer a business proposition to operate those shafts or when men can be better employed elsewhere using their skill and energy to obtain better results. It is calculated that within the next 10 years at least 3,000 face workers will be required in our area. In addition, it has been found as a result of the survey that while

other areas will get worked out in regard to specialised coal, like coking coal, there are large amounts of it in the North Staffordshire area, which means there will have to be large capital expenditure in that area in order that we cannot only extract the coal but change the coal so that it can be used in the manufacture of steel.
In addition, the steel industry of Canada is to be developed, and they are looking to North Staffordshire and other places to supply them more regularly, so that oil and other freightage comes one way and coking coal will go the other way. It would, therefore, be wrong to reduce by a penny the proposed amount that the Minister has the right to use in the way that the Bill indicates.
My only doubt is whether the amount is enough. I am supported in that doubt by several very informative articles that have appeared in "The Times," especially in the financial columns of that newspaper. The financial editor of "The Times" has on several occasions, when making an analysis of the proposed capital expenditure in the mining industry, expressed doubt as to whether that sum is enough, having regard to the fact that the coal plan is available for us to study and bearing in mind that it is proposed that within 10 years an enormous increase in output should be brought about. Doubt has been expressed whether the amount at the disposal of the Minister is sufficient to enable this plan to be carried out.
While it is only right that we should use our democratic rights for the purpose of bringing out ideas, making our various contributions and providing the Minister with an opportunity of making statements, at the same time I hope that no speeches will be made that will introduce any uncertainty into the mining industry, because that industry, with the magnificent contribution it is making to Britain's economic recovery and the Herculean efforts which are made by the miners particularly during weekends, deserves the wholehearted support of us all, and I hope that no uncertainty will be brought about which will cause concern among those who are rendering such great service.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)


seem to have confused the meaning of the word "uncertainty" with the words "public accountability." There is no intention on the part of any Member on this side of the Committee to introduce any element of uncertainty in regard to capital advances to the coal industry. I think there is almost unanimity in all quarters of the Committee that a measure of increased capital is required in the coal industry in accordance with the National Coal Plan, but surely when that new capital is provided it should be subject to the closest public scrutiny and the highest degree of accountability that any Member on either side of the Committee can give it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that, but why is it proposed to reduce the amount?

Mr. Glanville: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad the hon. Member says "Hear, hear," because, I repeat, it indicates that many hon. Members opposite seem to misunderstand the inference of this Amendment. The inference and the importance of the Amendment is that by reducing the sum by £50 million it automatically reduces the period during which public accountability can be given to Parliament. That means that we can review the sum of money expended on capital account by the National Coal Board at shorter intervals. I believe that is important.

Mr. William Ross: Why £50 million?

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall pass to a few general remarks on the sum which has been chosen by the Minister in this Bill—the sum of £300 million, representing a doubling of the sums he was permitted to advance to the National Coal Board under the Coal Act of 1946. In the Second Reading debate, as reported in column 915 of HANSARD, I asked the Minister if he would give me further details of what part of the £150 million was attributable to increased costs of equipment and operation by the Coal Board and what part of the extra £150 million was attributable to capital development under the Coal Plan. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman side-stepped and evaded me question and gave no answer at all. I shall quote phrase by phrase and word by word what he said, and when he replies to this

Amendment I hope he will be a little more specific and will make a real endeavour to answer my question, which is a very important question. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The sums in this Bill are calculated on the basis of the sums to be invested under the National Coal Plan—£635 million.
Nobody will quarrel with that, and all of us have read the Coal Plan. The hon. Gentleman continued:
That real investment, real equipment, machinery, and so on, is based on 1949 prices.
Nobody will quarrel with that; it is a reasonable yard-stick to take the prices of the year before last. The hon. Gentleman went on:
As I explained in my original speech, that would probably require—it is all a matter of judgment and forecast, advances from me to the Board of up to £268 million. Therefore the limit of £300 million allows a margin for rising costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 915.]
But he does not answer the question—how much out of the £300 million is inflation in the cost of equipment and operation and how much is development. I hope that when he replies to this Amendment he will make an effort to answer.
I want to compare that figure of £268 million with what the Coal Plan itself says about it. If the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Coal Plan readily available, would he please turn to Section 19 where it says that out of the £635 million to be spent over 16 years at the rate of £40 million a year, three-quarters will be supplied by the Board's depreciation provisions, but a quarter will need to come out of borrowings from the Minister of Fuel and Power. Therefore, out of the £635 million, roughly £160 million only is to be borrowed by the Coal Board from the Minister. According to the Coal Plan it is £160 million over a period of 16 years.
But in this Bill, the Minister is providing £150 million of additional borrowing facilities, so that it follows that under the Bill he is providing sufficient finance for capital development under the Coal Plan for the whole industry for 16 years ahead. Surely that is giving him far too wide a measure of jurisdiction. In this year of grace 1951, I do not want to try to legislate for what that Minister of Fuel and Power or any other Minister of Fuel and Power may deem is necessary for the coal industry in the year 1964. I


want public accountability at intervals of two years at the very most, and I do not think this Committee should vote to the Coal Board, in legislation which they pass, any sum of money which covers more than a two-year measure of control of the sums required for capital development. I hope the Minister will deal with that point when he replies to the Amendment.
May I pass to just one other point—the question of the £21 million of workmen's compensation. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring seems to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes), who referred to the sum of workmen's compensation used by the Coal Board for development purposes, was making an attack on the principle of workmen's compensation. He did nothing of the sort.
If the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring had any experience at all of good business and accounting practice, he would Know that the best private and public companies preparing their accounts have one separate banking account which deals with day-to-day general requirements, another banking account into which they place the sums deducted from employees' wages for P.A.Y.E. so that that sum of money is always sacrosanct, and another banking account into which is paid the sums provided for holidays with pay, and so on, and the Coal Board ought to regard as completely sacrosanct sums of money which are set on one side for workmen's compensation purposes. This fact has emerged from the Second Reading of the Bill.
I say—and I hope I shall not give offence to the Minister, for he is primarily responsible—that I regard it as highly immoral that workmen's compensation moneys should be used by the Coal Board for capital development. It is no use the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring grinning.

Mr. Blyton: Perhaps I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the old Coal Owners' Association always invested the capital of the compensation when they ran the Compensation Act.

Mr. Nabarro: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands the difference between investment and appropriation. It is wise to take any sum of money lying idle on

any account and to invest so that it may earn income, but it is quite another thing for the undertaking to use that sum of money for capital development purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is an investment."] It is not an investment; it is a case of using that money for a purpose for which it was not provided, and I believe that is a highly immoral form of accounting and that the National Coal Board should not be allowed to conduct their finances on that basis. I hope in his reply the Minister will at least give us a more satisfactory explanation of these matters than that which he provided on Second Reading of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Neal): I should be insincere if I did not acknowledge the genuine but somewhat unsuccessful attempt of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Raikes) to be uncontroversial in moving the Amendment, but I can assure the House that I shall attempt to reciprocate that feeling in the reply I am about to make. First, we must remember that in dealing with the question before us we are dealing with something which will be vital to the economy of this country for many years to come. Unless we can achieve the maximum output of coal over the next 10 to 15 years, the economic outlook will indeed be disastrous. That is the real reason these borrowing powers are necessary for the stated amounts.
In the course of the Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend said that the figure of £300 million represents the capital advances that will be needed by the National Coal Board if they are to implement their National Plan for Coal in the next 15 years. He explained in some detail how this figure was related to the proposed capital expenditure of £635 million by the Board over that period. There can be no doubt that £300 million is in fact a modest limit to the Board's borrowing powers if they are to achieve the aims they have set out in the Coal Plan. Any reduction in the figure will inevitably jeopardise its success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain later.
8.30 p.m.
In proposing such a reduction, hon. Members are, in effect, asking the Government to run the risk of failing to


maintain our major national industry at the level of production that the country's economy is expected to require. Hon. Members do not, I know, question the need for a long-term plan, but, as my right hon. Friend said in the Second Reading debate, it must be a long-term plan, and we cannot have a plan in "five-yearly packets." All businesses, like the National Coal Board, have to look ahead and try to arrange in advance to meet customer's demands in the future, and in coal mining the need for taking the long view has always been specially important.
Here I come to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Garston. He asked how many new pits the National Coal Board had sunk since nationalisation. The answer is that one pit has been sunk; and we have, of course, continued the pre-nationalisation projects of new sinkings. But I would remind him, when he is making comparisons, and quoting the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) about the sinkings that were made before the war, that, to the best of my recollection, in the 15 years before nationalisation only one pit was sunk by private enterprise. [Interruption.] It is true. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) says it is not true, let him controvert that by presenting me with the names of collieries that were sunk in the last 15 years.

Mr. Bracken: Pits are not the same as collieries.

Colonel Lancaster: May I interrupt? I sank four shafts myself during that period. I cannot, with the best will in the world, turn four into two, and that is twice what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned; and there must have been a few more apart from those.

Mr. Neal: We all know that a shaft is not necessarily a colliery. Under the National Coal Board's plan the National Coal Board is intending to sink 22 new pits.

Mr. Pickthorn: In what period?

Mr. Neal: In the next 10 or 15 years. The Board's Plan envisages only the next 10 or 15 years. Pits of the nature and type it is intending to sink will cost considerably more than they did in the pre-war

period. I believe it is correct to say that pits were sunk in pre-war days for about £1 million, but pits of the type and size that the National Coal Board envisages in its Plan will doubtless cost £5 million.
It will take sometimes up to 10 years to sink a shaft and to get a pit into full production. Sinking pits, as those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with the coal industry will know, is not like opening a shop or opening a factory. One cannot put the goods on the shelf and immediately ask the customers to buy. To some extent we have suffered in the past from lack of planning in new sinkings and extending coalfields.
I think that it will be generally agreed that in the years of bad trade before the war, many colliery companies just had not the money to do the things which they would have liked to have done to put the mines in a position to meet all the demands that are before them today. The Report of the Reid Committee in 1945 showed how badly we had fallen behind other coal-producing countries in the race of technical progress, and how great was the need for an extensive programme of reconstruction and modernisation in the mines of Britain. "There is no time to be lost," they said.
The annual Reports of the National Coal Board show that they have not indeed been letting the grass grow under their feet in the early years of nationalisation while waiting for a national plan to formulate. They have gone ahead with a heavy programme of investment. I wish I had the time and that it was considered relevant to this debate to tell the Committee of so many of the things the National Coal Board have done in reorganising the pits in the different coalfields. Over £100 million has been invested in the first four years of nationalisation, and projects costing another £68 million had been approved up to the end of 1950; but all these projects will be needed simply to prevent the output of coal in the various coalfields from dwindling below minimum needs and to prevent costs from rising.
Each year, coal has to be taken from deeper, thinner and more difficult seams. Now, however, the Board are getting to a point where more doubtful projects have to be considered. It might pay the country better if they were sited in one


coalfield rather than in another, and that is where the need for the National Plan comes in. Costs of production, as well as costs of transport to markets, vary from place to place, and so do the qualities and kinds of coal produced, and these factors must be weighed up and a careful balance struck.
The Plan suggests the need in the next 10 or 15 years for a very heavy capital investment in the mines and associated industries of £635 million at 1949 prices. The Plan is now under consideration by the Government, and it may yet be modified, but there is little doubt that the investment in the coal industry will need to be of this order. In large part, as my right hon. Friend explained in the Second Reading debate, the money will be found out of the Board's own revenues from the provision made each year for depreciation. Part of the money, however, will come from money borrowed from the Government.
The Board's Plan suggests how much of the total sum shall be spent in each coalfield and what should be the annual output of coal from each. In all, the Board expect that 240 million tons a year will be needed from deep mines. Last year, the deep mines produced about 204 million tons of coal, and some 12 million tons were produced from the Government's opencast sites. Opencast mining will, of course, disappear as the National Coal Plan matures, so that the Board are planning to expand output by one-fifth. I do not think that hon. Members opposite will say that that is too high a target to set.
The Board's task would have been much easier, and they would have been able to show much bigger reductions in costs, if they were planning to keep the industry at its present size. The bigger the industry, the more of the difficult and less accessible seams of coal have to be worked, but the Board's task is to try to foresee that the nation's demands will be met, and do their best to meet them. In that respect, I want to stress the point that we are discussing tonight—essential investment in Britain's major industry, investment that is necessary to ensure that this great industry can play its proper part in the Nation's economy. On such an issue, it would be irresponsible to

risk not meeting the country's minimum requirements.
Let me say a word or two about the results of the Coal Board's Plan. The Board have estimated that the measures associated with the Plan, and they alone, should lead to a saving of 7s. per ton on 1949 values. This, of course, makes no allowance for any changes in the value of money which may occur. That 7s. will represent between £70 and £80 million a year, but the Board look forward even to further improvements from measures outside the Plan. It would be less than fair to the industry to suggest that this will be an easy task.
Great inventions in machinery and revolutions in technique of timing have taken place in the past, but always it has taken a long time to apply them on a wide scale in the mining industry, and often their scope has been limited to particular seams in particular places. But hon. Members can be assured that the Board are set, not only on securing the production that the country requires, but on doing so by the most efficient and economical means.
The Plan aims to secure the increase in output mainly in parts of Scotland, East Durham, Yorkshire, East Midlands, North Staffordshire, South Wales and the small coalfields of Kent. It does not seem possible, unfortunately, to avoid the decline in the central coalfields of Scotland, in West Durham, the older parts of Cannock Chase and the small coalfields in the Forest of Dean and Somerset. This plan which the Board have drawn up is a flexible one. It will, of course, be repeatedly revised in its details as more becomes known about reserves of coal, as new developments occur in mining techniques, as new inventions prove themselves, and as trends in demand and in manpower declare themselves unmistakably.
The investment, therefore, of £635 million over 15 years, which is what the figure of £300 million confirms, does not commit the Board to a set line of development. The Clause before us does not say that £300 million shall be advanced to the Board, but only that it may be advanced to the Board. What it does do, and what must indeed be done, is to ensure that the Board can borrow the amount that seems necessary, on any sober calculation, if we are to achieve the coal


production required. That is why we must offer opposition to this Amendment.
The reduction in the Board's borrowing powers of one-sixth obviously must create a reduction of one-sixth in the calculated output by 1960. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If we have a given amount of money to be used for the specific purpose of raising coal by 40 million tons in 15 years, and we want more money to develop it, it is fairly obvious that the amount of coal is going to be reduced.
I am really surprised at the alarm which the Opposition appear to create when they describe this as a staggering sum of £300 million. When I first entered this House, I can recollect being invited by a Member of the Opposition, who was then and is now considered to be an expert mining engineer, together with other of my mining colleagues, to support a proposal to borrow £300 million from the Government for the development of one county coalfield. Here is a plan of £300 million for the entire British coalfields.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, in one of his isolated moments of clarity on the Second Reading debate of this Bill, used these words:
In my judgment Britain rose to greatness through coal and, through coal, Britain will return to prosperity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 873.]
I heartily concur with those sentiments. I think that they were never more true than they are at the present time. Coal is the only raw material that we have in great quantities. Either we provide enough money to maintain and expand output, or we can speedily contemplate a lessening of production in our main industries and a lessening of our standard of life. It is for these reasons that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bracken: I think that I can retort in a kind of way to the rather crude remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his not particularly well-read Departmental brief. There were no isolated moments of clarity in the hon. Gentleman's speech because he could not even read out the impeccable language of his civil servants. He has treated the Committee tonight with great contempt. He asks hon. Gentlemen behind him, as he asks us, to think of a number. That is his form of mathematics.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), has told me that he is going to speak later. I am looking forward to the speech of the archdruid of Scotland, but, meanwhile, I hope that he will not interrupt. There were two quite interesting speeches this evening, and I am looking forward to the reaction from Mr. Homer tomorrow. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will cause some quarrels amongst their Socialist colleagues about the closing of uneconomic pits.

Mr. Blyton: We can deal with that.

Mr. Bracken: That may be, but will hon. Members from South Wales agree with it and is it Government policy? I should like to know, because it raises an issue of the highest possible importance. Some pits should be closed at the present time, but owing to political pressure they are not. Hon. Members opposite have some responsibility for that. The only clear thing that emerged from the Parliamentary Secretary's reading of his brief was that the Coal Board are to sink 15 new pits in the next 10 years.

Mr. Neal: Mr. Neal indicated dissent.

Mr. Bracken: It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. That is what he said. He may not have read his brief before he read it to us, but I can assure him that that was in it.
I would ask hon. Members who represent coal mining areas to ponder that remark. Does anyone believe it is possible to sink 15 pits or create 15 new mines in the next 10 years with the sort of priorities allocated to the Coal Board? I notice that the Minister himself is taking some notes. I am hoping he will tell us exactly what priorities the Coal Board get. I will sit down if the Minister will tell us that now. We also want a specific answer to this question: Does he agree that the Coal Board are to sink 15 new pits or even 10 new pits in the next 10 years? It is an extraordinary story, because they cannot. They have not been given the priorities in steel or any of the other necessities. [Interruption.] If the Minister would not rebuke his colleague in


public, I should like to develop my argument.
I want the Minister to give us an assurance about the opening of these pits by the Coal Board? Has the Board, in fact, the necessary priorities for the raw materials? That is a question that must be answered, otherwise the country is being grossly misled. My own belief is that the Coal Board's requirements will not be met. We are being asked to vote large sums of money which cannot be spent; they may lend it, but not spend it. We are asked to vote the money blindly.
In the days when the House of Commons could influence the Executive it always boasted about its control of the public purse. But this squalid Socialist Government has turned it into a sieve. There is no sort of control. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the wonderful plan, which the Coal Board has, and he referred to the days of private enterprise as those backward days when the coal industry was run by a troop of troglodytes, adding that there was no possibility of progress then. But in those days we were not importing coal and paying dollars for it.

Mr. Blyton: In those days the people were getting coal for nothing, because there were cheap miners.

Mr. Bracken: At present we are getting slate at £7 a ton.

Mr. Blyton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 82 men are entombed underground who, he says, were getting slate?

Mr. Bracken: I have said before that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to bring these great tragedies into party politics. I am sure that decent miners will repudiate it.
We must not become too controversial about these matters. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary a statement. I see a former Secretary for Mines in this Committee, one of the best respected Members of the House of Commons. I wish he had remained at that Ministry, because he was the only sensible person I have seen there from the Socialist Party for many a year.
The Minister himself must tell us tonight something about these wonderful plans of the National Coal Board. We have had no clear description of them

from the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that the Coal Board had a flexible plan. [Interruption.] I think that was what the hon. Gentleman read out. "If it is a flexible plan, why does it need fixed capital?" The Minister ought to apply his mind to these matters. If the plan is flexible, why should we be asked to vote this immense sum of money?
I think that most hon. Gentlemen opposite who have served in this House for a long period will agree that we have listened to one of the most lamentable explanations that we have ever received from a Minister about the expenditure of a large sum of public money. If the Minister is to command the support of those who sit behind him and is to receive some acquiescence from this side of the Committee, he should give us a clear indication of how this money will be spent. We have had absolutely nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a most amiable Member, but is obviously ill-placed in his present post. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Chief Whip, the Patronage Secretary, says "No."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I said, "Order."

Mr. Bracken: I was trying to keep in order until I was interrupted. The right hon. Gentleman must not be so touchy.
I say that we have had a most inadequate explanation from him. I appeal to the Minister to tell us what is to be done with this vast sum of public money. I hope the Minister will do so. Then we on this side of the Committee may be able to turn to other Amendments which are on the Order Paper in our names. That would be a convenience to the Chief Whip. We are always anxious to speed up public business. It will be helpful to everyone if the Minister will make an explanation now. [Interruption.] It is impossible for me to remember my peroration with the Secretary of State for Scotland interrupting me. We want a statement from the Minister, because we have been given none whatever, about the intentions of the Government about the financial scheme devised by them to expend this vast sum of money. To turn this Committee into a Council of State I invite the Minister to offer us that explanation now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have often wondered why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) is chosen by the Opposition to speak on a serious subject like coal. He has no practical experience of coal mining or the serious economic problems which lie behind the debate. He referred to me as the arch-druid of Scotland. He looks more like my conception of an arch-druid than I do; but I should not connect him with anything remotely as spiritual as an arch-druid, because his spiritual communion is obviously with a gentleman who used to give dexterous performances at Barnum and Bailey's Circus.
He referred in a rather deprecating and churlish way to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has made his first appearance at the Despatch Box. I thought that my hon. Friend's speech contained a very reasoned argument in reply to the points which had been raised. If it was read from a brief, I wish the Opposition had supplied the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, with a brief, and then we might have had a reasonable, relevant, intelligent and serious argument from him.
The Opposition ask that we should substitute £250 million for the £300 million which is the estimated amount of capital expenditure involved. I think the Ministry have been rather moderate in their estimates, and I agree with what has been said by one of my hon. Friends in that respect. We must remember that the capital expenditure estimated in the Coal Plan was, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, based on 1949 prices and that in 1951 those prices have become almost irrelevant. Hon. Members have said that it has to do with devaluation and others have said that it is due to rearmament and the international situation. Certainly there has been, and there will be, a very sensational rise in the prices of machinery and raw materials and everything else owing to the international situation and the international policy of re-armament and inflation, of which hon. Members opposite are the greatest supporters. [Interruption.] This is my speech, is it not? The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, has had his knockabout performance.
I am arguing that we have to face the financial and economic consequences of

re-armament and that when Ministers have come forward with proposals to spend very large sums of money, immensely larger than the £300 million, there has been no demand from the Opposition for meticulous examination of the expenditure. They have said to the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War, "Go ahead. Spend millions more." The amount for which we are asked to develop the coalmining industry is comparatively small compared with the astronomical sums which the Opposition have been urging the Government to spend during the last 12 months.
9.0 p.m.
Scotland is one of the districts vitally concerned with this expenditure of £300 million. The whole of our industrial and economic life in the West of Scotland depends upon the transference of the base of the mining industry from Lanarkshire into Fifeshire and Ayrshire. If this capital expenditure is not approved, it means completely hamstringing the economic development of the West of Scotland, and especially the change in the coalmining structure underlying the heavy industries of the West of Scotland.
I had the privilege of taking the Minister of Fuel and Power down one of the big mines in Ayrshire, which is very much affected by this capital expenditure. I view with very great alarm indeed the rise in prices. This programme of capital development in the mining industry will, as the more serious Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Raikes), who opened for the Opposition, remarked, be crippled by a shortage of machinery and of steel and by innumerable other factors. When the Opposition come along and say, "Reduce this figure from £300 million to £250 million," lopping off £50 million as a gesture, they are talking absolutely irresponsibly about the future of the mining industry.
It is quite true that re-armament will bring immense problems. I do not believe that if we carry on with the re-armament programme, and the rise in the price of steel continues in the next year or two, the sum which we are discussing will be anything like the amount required for the long-term plan in the coalmining industry. As the hon. Member for Garston quite rightly asked, how are we to sink new shafts if we do not have the steel?

Mr. Raikes: It cannot be done.

Mr. Hughes: And how are we to get the steel if we do not have the coal? That is the economic problem of rearmament. Hon. Members can talk as they like about the long-term plan for steel fitting in with the long-term plan for coal, but already the whole perspective of the Coal Plan has been completely altered by the shortage of steel. Representing a mining area, I believe that the re-armament programme has already broken down and will have disastrous economic consequences upon the future of the coalmining industry.
The Government are asking for a comparatively small sum and the only difference between the Opposition and the Government is £50 million. Instead of the Opposition bringing forward any constructive proposal for dealing with this serious problem—because it is a serious problem; it will develop into unemployment and economic crises, both in steel and in coal—apart from the hon. Member for Garston, who opened the debate and attempted to outline a certain amount of constructive suggestion, all we have heard is that we should cut the £300 million to £250 million. We have had no explanation of how or where it is to be done and what part of the coal industry is likely to be affected. If the pre-war figure of £1 million for sinking a shaft has already gone up, on 1949 prices, to £5 million, what will it be like in 1951 and 1952 if the economic crisis develops?
The Opposition have not a constructive solution but are pledged to the contradiction of re-armament which makes this economic problem impossible to solve. To suggest that they would perform a useful purpose by lopping off £50 million from £300 million is playing with the economic crisis which is looming as the re-armament programme proceeds.

Mr. Peter Roberts: On Second Reading the Minister referred to ancillary property and there is a point on that which I should like him to clear up. The question put to him was: In the working out of the amount of borrowings of the National Coal Board, has any account been taken of the sale of certain assets which might be able to finance the new plan? He was referred to houses and land and his answer was that in the past these houses were bought for good business reasons and there was no reason why the Coal Board should change their policy.
The point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that one of the reasons why the houses were bought was that if the colliery, by subsidence, let these houses down, they would be responsible for repair. Now a new Act has been passed, and compensation has to be paid by the Coal Board for houses which suffer through such subsidence, whether they own them or not. Surely that fact must alter the business aspect of the problem. If the Coal Board now owns houses bought for the specific purpose of saving the cost of subsidence and now, in any event, they have to pay that cost, the need to hold these houses ceases and the Minister might well give a direction to the National Coal Board to look through their properties to see whether many of them might be sold if they were bought purely to save the cost of repair work. I hope he will say whether he has considered that point and whether there might be a saving.
The second matter I would put to the right hon. Gentleman is the question of steel priorities, which I think is even more important. Can he say definitely whether there are any steel priorities being operated by the Steel Board, or the Minister of Supply? It would be very interesting to know. If so, has the Coal Board any such priority? I suggest that at the moment there are no such official priorities. Therefore, I was surprised that in his last speech the Minister said he was going to create priorities. I think he must tell the Committee what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to get allocation of steel at present. This not only affects the industry of coal, but affects all other industries, including steel itself.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Bill proposes several changes in the provisions of the original Act. It abolishes the time limit, it abolishes the previous stipulation that advances which were repaid must nevertheless be counted towards the total outstanding and it seeks to increase the total from £150 million to £300 million.
I am very glad that hon. Members opposite accept the principle of all these changes. The only difference between us is that they think that the upper limit ought to be £250 million instead of £300 million. I say at once that I think it just possible, if certain things happen over the next 15 years, that we might be


able to get through with the National Coal Plan with an upper limit of £250 million. We might be able to fulfil the purposes of the Bill, but I think it extremely unlikely. I therefore believe that the Committee would make a great mistake if they accepted the reduction which is proposed and I hope to induce hon. and right hon. Members opposite to agree.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Coal Board to make plans for capital development for 15 years ahead, to carry out their Coal Plan and to be sure from the start that they will have the capital they need when it is needed. Why do we think that £300 million is the minimum figure we ought to put in the Bill? I shall deal a little later with the question of how that amount is made up. Before I do so I might perhaps answer some of the questions and arguments that have been put to me in the course of our agreeable debate.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked me how much of the £300 million is allowed for inflation, for rising prices, and how much for real investment. He read out what I said on Second Reading, and if I may with modesty say so, when I heard what I had said I thought that it was crystal clear. The estimate of the investment of the £635 million required is made at 1949 prices. If, when the plans are carried out, prices have risen and more money is needed the only margin in the £300 million is the £32 million, which I will discuss a little later, and which I explained on Second Reading. That is my answer to the hon. Member tonight, as it was then.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes), who moved the Amendment, whether we can spend the £300 million, and other Members, including some of my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth. East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), have asked whether the international situation has not so altered that it is certain that we cannot get the steel we need. The answer has been given by my hon. Friend. Without coal we cannot get steel; without coal we cannot get armaments; without coal we cannot play our part in the Colombo Plan. Coal is the foundation of our economic prosperity and of our strength in peace and war. If we had war tomorrow we should direct

the miners to the pits. Surely it follows that we must get the steel. We are getting it. No production has been held up for want of steel anywhere, and we shall continue to get it. We must get the coal for our own national needs and the needs of our European Allies.

Mr. Bracken: Is the Minister now telling us that the Coal Board are absolutely satisfied that they have the raw materials, whether steel, engines or all manner of things necessary to carry out the Coal Plan? The Minister is now making a statement that the Coal Board have a priority which will enable them to have the steel, say, for opening up the 10 pits mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. I see the Minister of Supply sitting there. I think he ought to help his Ministerial friend in this matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister of Supply is in full agreement with me. We must have the coal.

Mr. Bracken: Is the right hon. Gentleman getting the steel?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, certainly, and we shall continue to get it.

Mr. P. Roberts: This is very important. The Minister says he is getting the steel. Other people are not. Is he getting it on some basis of priority or not?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are getting the steel and we shall continue to get it. That is a full and sufficient answer to the doubts which have been expressed. We shall get it.
That leads me to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman and others about the closing of pits. I say with great confidence that the Coal Board have closed fewer pits than were closed in the past. They have kept what are called uneconomic pits open. They have been able to do so because of nationalisation, the reason being that the nation needed the coal. I know that they have never closed a pit without consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers, and the right hon. Gentleman will not say that that is wrong; of course it is not. They have never closed a pit unless, as a result, they got more coal by putting the workers elsewhere. There has been no closure which has not resulted in an increase in the output of coal.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we shall open the pits provided for in the Coal Plan, and he asked what they were. If he had listened to what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, it was that 22 new pits are provided for in the Plan. Also 50 new drift mines; drastic reconstruction, reorganisation and re-equipment of 250 other pits. In addition, many pits which were previously separated are to be joined up and will be worked from a single shaft. The right hon. Gentleman has had the Coal Plan since last autumn. He knows perfectly well what it contains and I am now saying to him that it is to be carried out. We shall make it a reality.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) chided me gently for mocking at the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) because, on Second Reading, he proposed alternative methods by which capital could be raised. I hope I never mock at anybody and certainly I never mocked the hon. and gallant Member. I would not dream of doing so. He made a very serious and constructive contribution to our Second Reading debate, although I do not agree with the proposals he put forward. He suggested that the Coal Board should dispose of a number of their assets—brick works, tile-making plant, and so on. He said they might possibly get £2½ million of capital from that. He said they might dispose of their farms and that on an estimated value of the land that might bring in £4½ million. Another hon. Member suggested the Coal Board might sell their houses. It was good business for the original owners to acquire them, and if it was right for the original owners to have them I think it right that the Coal Board should retain them.
I do not think it is anything to do with avoiding the cost of repair. The Coal Board will repair their own houses. They will not allow them to fall to pieces about the ears of their workers. They need the houses to house miners, officials and other people important to the conduct of their industry. In point of fact I discussed this with the Coal Board before the Second Reading debate, before the hon. and gallant Member made his proposals. I discussed every point with the Coal Board at considerable length and on a

number of occasions. I am satisfied after those discussions that we should make a mistake if we urged the Board to dispose of these assets for what, after all, would not be a very large capital sum.
Now let me deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the use by the Board of their workmen's compensation funds. Is it immoral for the Coal Board to invest them in the industry? For the life of me I cannot see that it is in any way immoral. What is necessary, what is essential, what we must safeguard, is that the Coal Board can be certain of paying to their workmen the sums due to them at the proper date. Under this arrangement that is absolutely certain, because, by investing these sums in their own business, they can call on the Minister for advances under the Act which will enable them to pay their workmen. As I said before, I am sure that this is a perfectly proper thing to do and greatly to the advantage both of the Board and the nation.
The use of these funds by the Board was discussed in the Public Accounts Committee. It is shown quite plainly in the accounts of the Board that they have been invested in the industry itself. No one, no technical expert outside, no one in the House, no one in the Public Accounts Committee, has ever questioned or challenged the propriety of this policy until now; and I think that this Committee would be quite wrong if they condemned it.
Let me come to the main point in the debate and the main difference between the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and me. It is really a matter of arithmetic. How is the £300 million made up? He said £160 million for investment in capital assets; £21 million for repayment of workmen's compensation funds which have been invested; £33 million for outstanding advances; £32 million for working capital—a total of £246 million. Therefore, in the £300 million, we have an additional £54 million for extra working capital or for other things, and that is altogether too big a margin. But that is not, in fact, quite a complete account of what I said on Second Reading.

Mr. Raikes: The right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, that I put those figures forward for the purpose of getting an explanation of them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I agree that the hon. Gentleman was not at all controversial about it. I am trying to explain that I did not make it perfectly clear on Second Reading. On reading again, since he spoke, what I said on that occasion, I think I might have put it more plainly. Therefore, I will put it in another way which, I hope, will carry conviction.
The total to be raised over the next 15 years is £635 million. The National Coal Board estimate that in these 15 years the depreciation sums will amount to £475 million. But not all that £475 million will be available for investment. The sum of £75 million will be needed to repay sums which they have now used for investment, but which they must later replace to meet the liabilities which, in due course, they will incur. Of that £75 million, not £21 million, but £15 million is for the workmen's compensation fund.
I do not know where the figure of £21 million came from; I could not find it in my speech. In fact, the figure is £15 million, and that leaves £60 million for repayment to the previous owners. I think that is the item which the hon. Gentleman missed. As I say, I think it was my fault for not having explained it quite clearly on Second Reading, but, at any rate, there is that £60 million for repayment to the previous owners. That means not £475 million, but £400 million only will be available for capital investment in the National Coal Plan. That leaves £235 million to be found from advances by the Minister. To that we have to add the £33 million of the outstanding advances which we have today—£268 million. That only gives a margin of £32 million for working capital and for rising prices. It is really a very modest margin indeed, and I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the Opposition may agree to this Clause being adopted.

Colonel Lancaster: The Minister has made a very important announcement, but I am sure he will agree that the major work of reconstruction has not been done by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, or, indeed, by the Coal Board, but by firms supplying plant for this purpose, who have been told during the last few months, both by divisional supply officers and by Coal Board supply officers, that steel is not available for their purposes.

The Minister has said this evening that all the steel required is available. In the light of that statement, will the right hon. Gentleman now give instructions, both to divisional supply officers and to the Coal Board's supply officers, that the steel is not only available in theory, but will be available in practice to the firms supplying the necessary plant, and who are at this moment held up because they cannot get the steel, or the necessary allocation, without which the whole of this Coal Plan will fall to the ground?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not the detailed information about those instructions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has. I say to him again that we are to get the steel that is needed to carry out the Coal Plan. To get the coal we must have it.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman was asked a specific question by my hon. and gallant Friend. Why do the right hon. Gentleman's divisional officers, or the divisional officers of the Government engaged in steel and other nationalised industries, declare that the steel is not available, and will not be available for the machinery required by the mining industry? The Minister tells us, in a boastful sort of way, that we shall get the steel. Is there a definite priority for the coalmining industry and for those firms who provide the equipment necessary for the production of coal?
The Minister made a most interesting speech at a rather considerable length but all the way through, when he was talking about the coal situation and rather basking in glory, he forgot that at present we are still ordering coal in the United States and that no one in the coal industry at the moment has any real assurance that steel will be available to get on with the Coal Plan mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I know nothing of the declarations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I say that if there is any difficulty about this it is to be referred to me and I have not heard of the difficulties.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members: Divide!

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Hon. Members should sit down when I stand up. We


have had two hours' discussion on this Amendment and I hope the Committee will come to a decision.

Mr. Raikes: After the long and interesting debate we have had upon the Amendment which I moved, and in view of what the Minister has said—without, of course, necessarily agreeing with everything he said—on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that the Minister shall not in any year make advances to the Board exceeding thirty million pounds save in pursuance of an order, which the Minister is hereby empowered to make, which shall specify the excess over thirty million pounds which is authorised in respect of that year.
In moving this Amendment, I hope it will be convenient to you, Major Milner, if we take with it the later Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(2) The power conferred upon the Minister by the section so substituted to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions.
I hope we shall not take as long over this Amendment as we have done over the previous one. The Minister, in his reply on the previous Amendment, said that he could scrape through if he had the £250 million suggested in that Amendment. He said he would not have liked it but he thought it was possible.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We might scrape through if certain things happened, including a fall in prices.

Mr. Bracken: And a change in Government.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister was prepared to say that under the previous Amendment the figures were tenable on a logical argument. In the case of the present Amendment the figure we propose is more than tenable. The Minister said he needed £460 million

over a period of 15 years for the purpose of capital development. I think it is fair to say that the Minister himself does not expect to expend more than something of the order of £20 million each year. We on this side of the Committee feel that where these great sums are granted to Government Departments, we must have Parliamentary control. I think that the Minister, if he were on this side, would be equally desirous of seeing that there was proper Parliamentary control where great sums of money were required.
9.30 p.m.
In his Second Reading speech, I thought the Minister made a rather innocent statement, with of course that charming smile of his, that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were always immediately accountable to the House of Commons and that a debate could always be demanded and their conduct and administration criticised. Money spent in January of this year will not be reported to this House until we get the National Coal Board's Report which will come out in July next year—something like 18 months after that money has been spent.
I agree that it would not be right every time a minor project is put forward for us to ask that the Coal Board should tell us about it or that it should be subject to detailed examination in Parliament, but what we do say is that where large sums of money are concerned we should try to set a figure which will allow the Coal Board full scope for its own day-to-day development but yet at the same time will ensure that when they desire to spend any extra large sum they must come to Parliament and, through the Minister, tell us why they want that sum.
It will be noted that the two Amendments are designed purely to that end. In no sense are they frustrating the Coal Board. In these Amendments we say that when they want more than £30 million they must tell the Minister to come to the House and lay an order before the House saying what is this sum over and above £30 million that he needs and why it is required. It may be that when he makes a short speech saying why he wants that money, no Member will wish to argue because the House will be convinced by the Minister's statement.
On the other hand, it may be that, whatever party is in office, there may be an excess of expenditure which, in the interest of Parliamentary control, should be discussed. By putting down this figure, I think we have ensured that, on the one side, the Coal Board should not be hampered in its day-to-day work and, on the other side, that Parliament should retain proper control over moneys that it votes for a particular purpose.
I hope the Minister will not say that £30 million is too low, because on the figures which have been given in his Department's Estimates it is equivalent to the average sum which he has to spend over two years. Equally I hope he will realise that when he wants to spend more than £30 million the least he can do for himself, his successors and Parliament, which he serves, is to ensure that if such a sum is necessary he should have the right to explain and that Parliament should have the chance to discuss the matter and authorise it if they think fit.

Colonel Clarke: I want briefly to support this Amendment. I think it is a very moderate Amendment. We have been speaking in big figures in this debate, but I think that £30 million is a big figure in itself. I have not worked it out, but I believe it represents something between 2d. and 3d. on the Income Tax. We are suggesting that in any year that amount should be spent without reference to this House, but that if more than that is desired to be spent then reference must be made to Parliament. I think that is fair.
In the course of the debate the Parliamentary Secretary said that it might be that plans would be modified, and that if they were modified higher expenditure might be entailed. If plans are modified Parliament should be informed and should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. It is only right from the point of view of the industry, and we should show that we in Parliament are taking an intest in such changes. This is a most moderate Amendment, which seems to meet a good many of the arguments which were adduced against the last Amendment. Therefore, I hope it will meet with the approval of the Committee.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: In supporting the Amendment I wish to say

that I do not believe there is a reasonable person in this Committee or, indeed, in the country who would withhold from the Coal Board a single pound necessary to put the coal industry in its right and proper position. But what I think the country requires us in Parliament to do is to satisfy ourselves that the money which is spent is spent in the right way and at the right time, having regard to the circumstances at that time.
The accountability of Parliament for the expenditure of huge sums of money is very necessary. I say to mining Members on the other side of the Committee that if any of this money were wasted I doubt whether like sums would be available a second time. We have to be satisfied that the money is used in the proper way and at the proper time. I am also satisfied that if this money is wisely spent, then long before the end of the Coal Plan it will lift not only the efficiency of the industry but, what is dear to the hearts of all hon. Members the standards of life of the miners themselves, and it will not be too long a time before they become technicians, labouring more with the skill of their hands and less with the sweat of their brows.
I and many others have studied the Coal Plan very carefully and I suggest that it should have been submitted by the Minister to this House as a Report. It should have been submitted by him for debate on the Floor of the House and it should have been accompanied by a full and detailed review of the moneys he required and the ways in which he proposed to spend it. If that had been done, a good deal of today's debate would have been avoided.
The Bill provides the finances which it is anticipated will be required under the Coal Plan, but I gravely suspect that, with costs rising as they are, by the end of the Plan, whether it is 10 or 15 years, the sums required will be very much greater than we have envisaged today. On the question of shortage of supplies of steel, if this debate has done nothing else it has brought an assurance from the Minister that if steel is not being properly provided at the moment, as from tomorrow he will see that it is.
This Amendment does not seek to put any obstacle in the way of right and justifiable expenditure on the part of the Board, but it rightly seeks to impose a


restraint upon uncontrolled expenditure and, to have it reviewed year by year. We do not seek to reduce the annual amount, but what we ask is that for sums over £30 million or £40 million the House shall have an opportunity of studying how the money is to be spent in the year before us and to review what has been done in the year gone by. It seeks to establish an annual accountability by the Board, through the Minister, to Parliament. I feel that more of such accountability is necessary for the nationalised industries than many hon. Members have realised.
I would go further and say that any responsible and prudent Minister of Fuel and Power would require and expect that such an arrangement would be made, because it means that he would be placing before Parliament every year a comprehensive plan for the next year's development of the coal industry. We could follow it with interest, give him advice and give him the encouragement which he required, because there is no industry in this country today which has so much upon it the searchlight of public opinion as has the coal industry. The reasons for that are obvious. The coal industry is the key to our prosperity in peace and to our survival in war; and may I say this to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), the sincerity of whose opposition to re-armament I do not doubt: without proper re-armament we shall not have a coal industry to develop.
The coal industry not only controls the interests of the miners themselves and of householders, and the interests of industry, but upon it depends the welfare of the nation. Yet there is no industry within which there is such a closed shop about information. The Opposition have to probe and probe, to question and question, and to take whatever opportunity they can at very wide intervals to obtain information about the operation of the industry. May I give a simple example? In this Coal Plan, what allocations of money have been made, and what is the proposal, for the long-term programme of modernisation of coke ovens?
One hon. Member on the Government side pointed out, quite rightly, that if we do not have coke ovens we shall not have pig iron and that if we do not have pig iron we shall not have steel. We have

not only to win the coal, but we have also got to convert the coal into suitable coke. There is no information anywhere on this one vital item. There is a statement, it is true, by the Minister that we are to spend £115 million on coke ovens, ancillary plant, briquettes, and the like, but we do not want global figures only. How far has the Board got with the national wages policy?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going too far. This is not the occasion for a general disquisition on the proceedings or policy of the Board. The question is simply whether an advance should be made in a certain sum in any one year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not relevant, Major Milner, to discuss wages, because on the amount of wages will depend the amount of money available for capital development?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I stand corrected by you, Major Milner, and I will not make any further reference to a general wages policy, except to say this—[Laughter.] I shall be in order—that in the development, area by area, of the Plan itself conditions of every kind will have a great part to play in the results of the activities in those areas. In this Plan, in the annual statements, but particularly the Plan, the Minister and his advisers should indicate to Parliament how he allocates the global sums area by area, so that we can follow the expenditure, and so that the men and the managements in those areas will have confidence and know the money is available to them in those particular areas.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the steel industry. Is it not a fact that in the next few years one of the bottlenecks of British industry may be the lack of supply of coking coal? If so, is it not necessary to remove all uncertainty in the mining industry, so that the industry can carry out this Plan on the basis of maximum confidence that it will not be interfered with in proposals of this kind?

Mr. Robson-Brown: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is supporting my own argument. I was surprised that it was he who mentioned the


development of increasing production of coking coal to send to the United States.

Mr. Smith: To send to Canada.

Mr. Robson-Brown: To Canada. I beg the hon. Member's pardon. To Canada or the United States. It would be a relief to those of us on this side of the Committee to know that coal was going the other way for a change. However, it is no relief to me to know that it is contemplated that coking coal should make its way out of this country to Canada or elsewhere until the needs of our own home steel industry have been fully met. Extend our coke production by all means, and export any surplus coke, but not good coking coal.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is now not being fair to himself. He is better informed, and ought not to make a statement of that character. He knows that the object of the Plan is to bring about an enormous increase in the output of coal. We cannot do that without large-scale capital expenditure. At the same time, we are to have an enormous increase in steel from Canada. Canada has not got the coking coal, and, therefore, requires it from this country. So we import from there an increased amount of steel, which is necessary in this country and in Europe.

Mr. Robson-Brown: I do not want to get into an involved argument with the hon. Member. If Canada is to send steel to us in considerable quantities and to Europe—and the hon. Member was bringing in Europe—we shall get into an international re-distribution of supplies. I heard somebody on the other side complaining about Strasbourg. I was not at Strasbourg. I know nothing about it.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself more closely to the precise purpose of the Amendment, which deals with advances for capital expenditure.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Robson-Brown: May I be allowed to answer one point regarding the development plan and the production of increased tonnages of coking coal? I can assure the hon. Member that very large tonnages of coking coal in this country are not entirely satisfactory for making coke. There is a tremendous amount of

capital expenditure required at the coke ovens of the National Coal Board in order to make suitable coke at the present time, and that is involved in this particular Bill.
Finally, whatever money is required for the coal industry, it must be found. That is absolutely vital, but what is none the less vital is that we must be satisfied that it is well spent, and, judging by the records of the Government in some of their ventures, we cannot be too confident that it will be spent in the wisest way. Therefore, it is necessary for us—and this is the purpose of this Amendment—to see that annually we can keep an eye on what they are doing.

Colonel Lancaster: One of the doubts which has arisen in our minds throughout this discussion this evening concerns the question whether the Minister would have the steel and the other requirements with which to carry out the capital development Plan for the period we are discussing. Both in the earlier Amendment and in a more recent one, that has been the factor which has actuated hon. Members on this side of the Committee, most particularly in regard to the amount for which we thought it was reasonable for the Minister to ask at this stage.
All our doubts have now been set at rest. The Minister has made a most important announcement; in fact, he has made two announcements. He has announced that all the steel that is required will be available, and he also made what is, to my way of thinking, an even more peculiar announcement, when he said that he was unaware that the Supplies Officer of the National Coal Board had indicated quite definitely within the last two weeks that there is no sufficient allocation of steel and that he could not promise the steel which was required.
I pointed out to the Minister that the overwhelming majority of the capital constructional programme which will be carried out will be done by outside contractors. Headgear, surface plants, washing plants and the like are not being produced by the Coal Board or by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but by the operations of large contractors up and down the country who are making this plant and supplying it in accordance with this National Plan for Coal. I assure


the Minister that these very large suppliers of capital plant are at this moment short, not of specialised steel, but of ordinary sectional steel of the most common nature. They cannot get any certainty of delivery; in fact, they are going short of their current requirements.
On the other hand, the Minister says that this is a danger of which he can easily dispose, that there is all the steel necessary, and presumably these firms will have steel allocated to them straight away under that assurance. I cannot believe that the Minister has given this matter a great deal of thought. He said that I was talking about a particular matter of which he has no knowledge, but is the Committee really to take it that, on a matter as important as the supply of steel—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a great deal of latitude. The purpose of this Amendment is perfectly clear. The Amendment deals with the amount that can be advanced in any one year, and has no relation to the form of the capital expenditure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, is only entitled to take up the question whether the amount of the advance shall be limited to £30 million, and the explanation to be made of any excess over that amount. That is the sole question before the Committee. Other general questions are not now before the Committee.

Colonel Lancaster: I appreciate that. The point is that even this expenditure is conditioned by the plant, the steel and other things which are available, and on which this expansion can be made. As I have said, hon. Members on this side of the Committee doubt whether in fact there will be this steel and these other materials available on which this £30 million would be spent. If the Minister can now assure us that they will be available, our doubts will disappear, and the purpose of putting forward these Amendments disappear with it. I cannot believe that the Minister was speaking with full knowledge before him, and perhaps he will take a further opportunity in the course of the evening of elucidating this very important point and making it clear whether in fact his statement was quite the same as a definite promise that these requirements will be available.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson-Brown) has said, I think very rightly, that no one in the Committee grudges the investment funds that are required by the Coal Board. We want that investment to go forward as rapidly as possible. I am sure that everyone here will agree that if it could be done efficiently it would be desirable that the whole of the National Coal Plan should be carried out in five years instead of 15.
The purpose of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to secure some additional measure of Parliamentary control. With respect, I do not believe that that is either necessary or desirable. As the mover of the Amendment said, £30 million is, of course, much above the average of the sums that will be advanced over the next 15 years. Indeed, it will only be a very exceptional year when as much as £30 million will be advanced by the Minister. It would only be in some year, for example, when some of the deferred liabilities may mature—the capital repayments to the owners or the workmen's compensation fund—when it would be necessary for that money to be found and also the money for normal investment.
The point which I am making is that since this would be only in an exceptional year, this Amendment would provide a very spasmodic addition to the Parliamentary control which we now possess. Indeed, I do not believe that it would add anything of value to that control. Let me recite, as briefly as I can, what the controls are now. There are limits to the borrowing set up in the Bill when it becomes an Act, and the accountability of the Minister to Parliament for everything that he does. He has, under the Act, to approve the programme of capital investment; he has to make advances from the Consolidated Fund and for the various capital borrowings under Section 27. Parliament can call him to account on the way in which he exercises any of these powers. Parliament receives, and debates when it desires to do so, the annual reports and accounts presented by the Board. The Public Accounts Committee examine the annual return which the Minister has to make showing his transactions with the Board—that is to say, on everything covered by the Bill—and the return by the Minister is examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General


before it goes to the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee also examined the representatives of the Board and the Board's accounts. I think that that is a very effective chain of Parliamentary control.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment said that this is really weak and ineffective, because it all comes too late; the Report and the accounts are only available six months or more after the end of the year to which they apply. I submit that Parliament, in fact, is exceptionally well-informed on the affairs and transactions of the Coal Board. It is true that the annual Report is only made annually and that the accounts come only once a year, but annual accounts are the standard practice of the Government and throughout the commercial world.
The Coal Board accounts do not come substantially later than those of private commercial undertakings of a large size. Last year I.C.I. put in their report on 23rd May. This year the Coal Board's Report will be available to hon. Members on 5th June. Last year the date of the report of Unilever and Lever Bros, was July, 1950, nearly seven months after the end of the year. The British-American Tobacco Company and the P. & O. Steamship Company were seven and eight months, respectively. I do not think there is any undue delay in the issue of the Annual Report, and everybody agrees that the Report and accounts give a very full and clear picture of everything that the Board is doing.
I quote the "Financial Times," because on this matter it is a very high authority. Dealing with the Report for 1949 it says that it
is a statistical exercise and factual record which is a monumental achievement. Its coverage of the Board's activities is complete and exhaustive.
That is very high praise from that source. Such a Report and such accounts are a great factor in public accountability.
In addition, the Coal Board publish the quarterly statement of costs and receipts analysed by divisions and for the country as a whole through a provisional trading account, which gives the latest information on the Board's financial position, which has hardly a parallel in any big industry of which I am aware. It is true that the quarterly statement does not

contain information about capital investment but—and this is relevant to the purpose of this Bill—it is widely reported in the financial and technical Press. Therefore, it has considerable effect in public accountability and in the control which the House can exercise.
Moreover—and this affects more closely the Bill that we are now concerned with—every issue made out of the Consolidated Fund to the Coal Board is reported each week in the "London Gazette," in the statement of receipts and issues out of the Exchequer. That is an official publication, but the information is repeated, reported on, and summarised in the financial and technical Press, and, indeed, in the general Press. If any exceptional advances are made by the Ministry and if there are any apparently abnormal transactions between the Minister and the Board, they go immediately into this return and are brought to the notice of hon. Members, who can ask Questions about them.
On the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), disputed my assertion that we had to account for these transactions. Hon. Members can ask Questions about the information published in the return. They have done so and they are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Hon. Members, if they want to follow up the question on any transaction by asking about capital investment itself, can do so about schemes for which money is intended, and answers would be given. In fact, they have a great deal of information on which they can base questions about capital schemes.
In the annual Report there are two appendices which deal with capital investment. One sets out the full details of every scheme over £100,000 and the other what additions have been made or sales made of fixed assets. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at page 207 of the annual Report for 1947, he will find that it shows not only what has actually been spent on capital investment schemes of £100,000 value or more, but also what has been spent and what has been authorised. The total of what has been spent is there shown at the end of 1949 as £17 million and what has been authorised to be spent as £44 million. In other words, hon. Members have a great deal of information at a very early date.
10.0 p.m.
I know that hon. Members may ask, "What control has the Minister over the demands made by the Board for advances?" I reply that under Section 30 of the Act the Minister must approve the general programme of reorganisation and capital development. The Board makes a quarterly return showing its capital expenditure and commitments. It makes six-monthly statements of its cash requirements, and the banking arrangements, which I explained on the Second Reading ensure a full disclosure of the Board's financial position from day to day. They ensure that if at any moment the Minister has any doubt about any exceptional transfer or advance for which the Board may be asking he can make inquiries, and that he has complete control. The House of Commons can ask questions about it and can debate his answers if they think it worth while.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How does the House of Commons know about any of the facts contained in the statement?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I said, when the hon. and gallant Gentlman was not here, that the advances are all shown in a weekly return published in the "London Gazette."

Mr. Bracken: They are not all shown. Only those out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, but the advances are out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Bracken: Not all of them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Bill is concerned with the Consolidated Fund. The temporary advances come under another Amendment. I have been trying to show that there is a complete chain of Parliamentary control. The limit of £30 million might hamper the Coal Board in some year and restrict its freedom in planning in a way in which we do not now foresee. It may frustrate its purposes by making it not so easy for the Board to get on with its investments. I do not think that it would add to the real control which Parliament possesses.
I hope therefore that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues will not press this Amendment. I add that if they feel very strongly about it I will

consider it again before the Report stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot make any commitments now to accept it, but I should like to look at it again. It might have the disadvantages which I have sketched. I would like it best if the promoters of the Amendment said that they would give it up but, if they do not feel able to do that. I will, as I said, consider it again.

Mr. Bracken: We are very grateful to the Minister for his reasonable offer to us. We know that he cannot commit himself finally and we are glad that he recognises the strength of the argument put forward from this side of the Committee. When the Minister has had an opportunity to consider this whole question, he will probably accept our Amendment. I hope he will.
He has, in the best and most amiable professorial way, given us a lecture about how the House of Commons can control expenditure by Ministers. The Minister should recognise that it is actually possible for the National Coal Board to spend a great deal of money and for us to know nothing about it for 18 months. A Parliamentary control which can be exercised only 18 months after the event is not very effective, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) well knows. He is one of the last surviving financial purists in the House of Commons. I noticed that he very shocked when the Minister was giving us a little essay about House of Commons control of finance.
The Minister preened himself on the statistics produced by the Coal Board. He quoted an article from a paper which I occasionally read, called the "Financial Times," which praised the admirable statistics of the Coal Board. Nobody has ever cast any doubt about the Coal Board's capacity to produce statistics, but we all very much deplore their incapacity to produce coal. The Coal Board produce more statistics than coal, and, in my judgment, more slate than coke. However, when we have a generous offer by a Minister, we must accept it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), has a reputation for sobriety which is in no way exemplified by his conduct in this House. The potency of ginger ale seems to be worse than that of stronger liquor.
We do not look a gift horse in the mouth. We are grateful to the Minister


and we are sure that he will accept the Amendment when he has had a better opportunity to consider it. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be delighted to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and we all hope that we shall shortly have an opportunity to congratulate the Minister on accepting this most prudent Amendment.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Before my hon. and gallant Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, I want to make a few remarks on the amazing deduction drawn by the Minister from the catalogue of what he calls "Parliamentary control" which he claims is exercised by the House of Commons. He gave the House to understand that he had persuaded himself that adequate Parliamentary control was exercised over the activities of the National Coal Board. He said, for instance, that the accounts of the Board were examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Nothing useful could possible eventuate from that because the Comptroller and Auditor-General has no access to the books of the Board. The Minister did not claim that he had; he just left it at that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: They have the report of the auditors of the Coal Board. It has been said in public by the President of the Incorporated Society of Chartered Accountants that it is a great advantage that the accounts of a nationalised industry should be examined by independent professional auditors who are quite free from any Government influence.

Mr. Nicholson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of any mental dishonesty and I can only say he is displaying considerable ignorance. He shows that he does not remotely understand what the Public Accounts Committee do, or what they are meant to do, in an ordinary Government Department.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but we cannot have a disquisition on the powers and authority of the Public Accounts Committee. I allowed the mover of the Amendment considerable scope and I have also allowed the Minister to reply at some length, but we cannot go into these detailed questions of accountancy. That is much wider than the Amendment, which is quite a simple one and relates to the question of advances alone.

Mr. Nicholson: The Minister criticised the Amendment and, in support of his arguments, he adduced certain measures of control, as he called them, which Parliament can exercise over the National Coal Board and its borrowings. One of the examples which he cited was that the accounts of the Board were subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. As you have allowed the Minister to say that, Major Milner, I feel that I am entitled to point out to the Minister what the true position is.

The Chairman: The matter now before the Committee does not relate to the National Coal Board but to the advances from the Consolidated Fund to the Board. It is simply a question of what the amounts advanced by the Fund shall be, and any excess thereof.

Mr. Nicholson: If the Minister is allowed to produce certain facts or alleged facts as the argument in support of his case, surely, Major Milner, I am entitled to contradict them.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Further to that point of order. Was it not the fact that, in originally presenting the case for the Amendment—and that point was accepted by the Minister—we said that the question of Parliamentary control over the funds was very much the whole basis of the Amendment? It was no doubt for that reason that the Minister adduced the other methods of control that he considered to be adequate, whereas we have considered that they were not adequate; and that was the reason we put forward the Amendment. I would therefore suggest that, without going too much into great detail in that matter, it is clearly relevant for us to argue that when the Minister says that the other methods of control are sufficient—in this particular instance he referred to the Public Accounts Committee—we are entitled to rebut his evidence on this point.

The Chairman: The debate is limited to the question of control by Parliament of advances. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, but I cannot allow a wide discussion on the procedure or the operations of the National Coal Board itself, which is what the debate is developing into.

Mr. Nicholson: I shall deal with this point as briefly as I can, as the right


hon. Gentleman dealt with it. I say that any reference to the accounts of the National Coal Board as being an adequate safeguard in the way of Parliamentary control is nonsense.
The Public Accounts Committee, which represents the House of Commons, cannot get anything out of its examination of the accounts of the National Coal Board because the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not have access to them, and the rôle of the accountants who are employed by the National Coal Board, and not by the Public Accounts Committee, is in no way parallel to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope that the Minister will accept that from me as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and that the absence of the invaluable assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor-General renders the examination of the Coal Board's accounts by the Public Accounts Committee of very little value indeed. I will leave it at that.
I am convinced that we are at the core of the problem underlying the whole Bill when we are considering the degree of Parliamentary control and scrutiny which can be exercised over these advances and the way in which they are spent. Here we have a great chunk of the national economy—the most important chunk of all, if I may put it rather colloquially. We are asked by the Bill to invest immense sums in the mining industry. We are asked to become shareholders, to plunge even more heavily into this investment—and a most essential investment it is. We are asked to do so with very meagre accountability as far as the actual making of the investment is concerned, and no accountability at all so far as the management of that money is concerned once it has been invested.
I see your eye on me, Major Milner, and I do not want to go too far, but I ask the Minister this: If he rejects this exceedingly modest Amendment, what does he propose in its place? It is no good his deluding himself with the vague remarks which he made that the Minister was always there to answer questions, and how Parliament had complete access through Select Committees to all the activities of the industry—that will not do. I venture to say that there is no

side of our life where Parliament—in this case we are the shareholders—have less control over either the making of our investment or the running of it than in this particular industry. The Minister and the Government will hear a great deal more about it later on.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: The Minister has very kindly said that he will consider this again between now and Report stage and has raised two particular difficulties which he says are in his mind. The first is the difficulty that this would limit the Coal Board in their expenditure and in carrying out the Plan and it is generally agreed on all sides, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson-Brown) said, that we do not wish to limit the Coal Board in any way, or to stop a good plan being developed. The other point the Minister raised was that it is the desire of the House to exercise control.
On the first of those points, the question of limitation, the Minister pointed out what a very large sum £30 million was in this respect and that it was not, in fact, likely to limit the Coal Board. I would point out, in addition, that there will be the annual depreciation of the whole coal industry: a very big sum in cash for this purpose. Secondly, there is the ability of the Coal Board to switch its pension investments into investments of this kind. With these two together the amount which this limitation is imposing is, in point of fact, very much less than the apparent £30 million. It will give a limit of about £50 million. That is as good a guess as anyone can make at this stage.
I ask him to bear in mind that this would not be frustrating or limiting the Coal Board in carrying out any but a major development by sinking a large new pit. Minor developments will not be held up at all, but what will be raised for accountability—the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has mentioned—is a major development, the sinking of a very large sum of money in a big new coalfield.
I think the Minister is making a grave mistake if he does not wish to implicate the House in the investment of such very large' sums. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham What the right hon. Gentleman has


brought forward is a whole lot of arguments about accountability of water that is already over the dam. What we want in investment of big sums of money of this kind is to have control of it before it is invested. The real trouble with nationalised and semi-nationalised industries is that it is no good after a Gambia scheme or a groundnut scheme to say, "Right, we will look at the water over the dam" after it has flowed—

Mr. Bracken: Down the drain.

Mr. Pitman: The important thing is to have a good look at the investment before it is made. The Minister would be very wise to bring Parliament in to share responsibility with him for any such major investment before it is made. He says that before an investment is made the Coal Board discusses with him.

The Chairman: I am anxious to expedite the proceedings, but the question of the expenditure of the Coal Board has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment before the Committee, which has to do with advances to the Coal Board from the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Pitman: With respect, those advances are to be spent under the terms of this Bill for the carrying out of the Coal Plan.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will forgive me. We are not dealing with the Bill; we are dealing with an Amendment and the debate must be limited to the terms of that Amendment and not extend to the Bill.

Mr. Pitman: With great respect, Major Milner, the figure of £30 million which is mentioned in the Amendment is the sum to be provided out of the Consolidated Fund for expenditure of a capital nature in carrying out the Coal Plan. The Minister has said that he proposes to consider between now and the Report stage whether he will either accept this Amendment or introduce a fresh Amendment which will give the House some control over an investment before that investment is permitted.
The point I am making is that the conversations which the Minister has as to the expenditure of money in an investment of this kind are carried on behind the scenes with the representatives of the Coal Board. They decide that they will sink a new shaft and develop a new coal-field

at some place. I would have said that we should have a far more thorough investigation if the Minister knew that he was to be held responsible if that investment turned out, as it might do, to be as big a flop as the Gambia egg scheme or the groundnuts scheme.
The Coal Board consult with the Minister as to what this money from the Consolidated Fund should be spent on. If the Minister has to come to the House and justify it here I would say that there is a far greater degree of consideration and control because of the far greater responsibility of the Minister in that investment. If we leave the position as it is at present the Minister will go away and say it is the Coal Board that is to blame, if the thing goes wrong, and because the Coal Board have no real sense of responsibility either, the result is a complete blurring of the responsibility for an investment. The investment of large sums of money on ventures of this kind ought to be carried on under conditions in which responsibility is closely and precisely pinned down, and in which the House knows the man who is responsible for the success or failure of that particular venture.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Is not the next Amendment, in page 1, line 18, consequential?

Mr. Bracken: It looks as if it were. Major Milner, but like all Parliamentary or legal jargon it is more subtle than appears from the words. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has some powerful points to put in relation to it, which he will put with brevity and clarity if called.

Mr. P. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that the aggregate amount of the principal outstanding in respect of advances under this section for the provision of working capital shall not at any time exceed forty million pounds.
I shall endeavour to be brief and clear. I do not think that this is any way a consequential Amendment. It deals with a new point which we are trying to bring to the attention of the Minister. Admittedly it deals with public accounting and also control, but it is a different


point to that which we have been discussing. This Amendment seeks to divide the £300 million which the Committee has decided shall be the amount which the Coal Board can borrow. We say that this money is to be spent on a variety of subjects and that it can be divided into two portions—one for capital plant which earns money, the other being working capital which is necessary for the business but which only greases the wheels.
One of the methods of proving the efficiency or inefficiency of an undertaking is the amount of working capital that it has. We consider that in this case it is necessary, for the control of the House, to be able to see how much of this £300 million is to be spent in projects which will produce coal and how much is merely to be used as working capital. If too much money is spent in working capital that is not running the industry efficiently.
I hope I have made that point, because for instance in the area division of Yorkshire recently, the Board tightened up the collection of accounts. It has made money flow into their account more quickly and is, therefore, a laudable system of getting in their money. That has reduced their working capital and it is an efficient way of doing it. The point we are putting forward is that we would like to see the working capital as low as possible and the capital used in development as high as possible. We therefore say that at no time should the working capital be more than £40 million without the Minister coming before the House.
How did we decide on the figure of £40 million? It has been a difficult point to decide exactly where the line should be drawn. It is generally agreed in practice that 2s. a ton is a reasonable amount for working capital, and that amounts roughly to £20 million on the present output. But that excludes stocks and stores, and if we allow for increase in the price of stocks and stores it brings the figure up to the £40 million to which the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech when he said that the working capital needed was over £40 million more. So he referred to the figure of £40 million which we have taken.
Tonight the Minister has given us some new figures on this question of working capital. The figures which we got from

his previous statement amounted to £54 million. He has now given us a new statement which I do not follow and I would be obliged if he could give us some more information, because it is relevant to this point. He has said that the figure of £75 million he referred to before, in which he included the £40 million, is now £60 million capital repayment to owners. I think we should get this clear. What I think he is referring to is payment for stocks and stores. I should like to know exactly what that £60 million is.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Coal Board have over the next 15 years the liability to make payments to the Government for meeting repayment of compensation given to the previous owners of the collieries. The £60 million is that. It has nothing to do with working capital at all.

Mr. Roberts: What I do not follow is why the figure is £60 million. Why is that arbitrary figure taken? It must be a much vaster sum.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is the amount the Coal Board think they will have to pay from their depreciation fund for this purpose.

Mr. Roberts: In other words, they are going to write off this sum over a large number of years. That is what is comes to, and it would sound like a very large number of years. I now follow that and I am obliged.
Having accepted the principle and divided the £300 million into capital expenditure and working capital, we come to the question of how much it should be. We consider that £40 million is a reasonable amount. If one looks at the working capital at present shown in the latest accounts, which are 18 months out of date, the working capital, excluding stocks and stores, amounts to £40 million. Of that sum £22 million has been repaid to the Minister. In other words, the working capital at the moment is only £20 million. Therefore, when we suggest £40 million we consider that is a reasonable figure. I think my hon. Friends would be open to argument on the exact amount, but the principle we are endeavouring to put forward is that it is a good think for public accounting to know at easily recognisable dates what is the working capital in the business. Despite the argument which the Minister


gave on the last Amendment, the actual amount of working capital cannot be ascertained until a balance sheet is produced which in the present case is 18 months out of date.
10.30 p.m.
I think this is a reasonable suggestion to put before the Minister. He has thrown a kindly light on the previous Amendment; I hope he will do the same with this. Otherwise, it means that we are giving the Coal Board the power to increase their working capital, by calling in their debts, by running up heavy accounts, and so on, which, in the normal course, is bad business. The only reason why the Minister might oppose this Amendment is that he does not want this light to be cast on the Coal Board. If the Coal Board have been running efficiently, and have in the last year reduced their debtors by £20 million, which obviously means they have been calling in their accounts much more quickly, surely they should not fear that light. I imagine the only person who would not like it, would be someone who is inefficient. I hope the Minister will look kindly on the Amendment which has been put down to try to assist him and the Committee in their deliberations on this matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This Amendment would mean a fundamental change in the provisions of the Act of 1946. That Act provided one overall limit for capital purposes, both for working capital and for long-term investment. Now it is proposed to change that and have a separate maximum limit for working capital. Even after the lucid and persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), I do not see that it would be of advantage or would increase Parliamentary control to adopt what he suggests. It may have very great disadvantages. Under the banking arrangements which I have described the Board are enabled to use their current resources all the time in the prosecution of their business. This is a very sensible economic plan, which reduces advances from the Ministry to the Board to the absolute minimum, and the advances of the Government as well.
The essential feature of it is that there should be daily cash adjustments between the accounts of the Board, the Government and the Bank of England. Those

cash adjustments may, in part, reflect the variation in working capital. The hon. Gentleman asked me to say what the working capital is. It is a widely fluctuating amount from day to day and from week to week: £5 million every week for wages, payments from customers coming in in the middle of the month. There may be variations of £30 million within the space of every month in the total of working capital. I am assured that it would be quite impracticable to analyse the adjustment at the Bank of England day by day with the accuracy necessary to guarantee the observation of a statutory limitation, whether of £40 million or of any other amount.
If this Amendment were adopted, these bank arrangements would have to be abandoned and their great advantage lost. Instead, we would have to make separate bulk advances for each purpose—working capital on the one hand and long-term investments on the other. That would involve earlier advances from the Exchequer than are now made. That would mean that the Board would hold idle balances in their hands which would not be available, as they are now, to be used by the Government for other purposes. What advantages would it bring and what control would it gain? The Board must have the working capital they need, just as any other business, and were an arbitrary restriction to have any effect at all, it could only restrict the scope of the Board's transactions. In a given case, it might make it harder for the Board to get the coal we need. I do not think anybody would ever limit the working capital to more than is really required. This £40 million limit might work very much against the national interest.
Supposing that the Board had to build up war reserves of timber supplies. It might not be able to do it. Let us imagine that the limit was imposed. What would the Board in practice do? Would they contract their business? I do not think so. They would demand the full £40 million from the Minister, and they would keep their internal resources available; not put them into long-term investment but keep them available for use as working capital. It might be uneconomical for them to do so, and it might force them to take larger resources than they would need from the Minister for investment.

Mr. P. Roberts: This would be a matter of asking to borrow specific sums from the Minister. We are not talking about day to day administration of the Board, which can borrow from the banks sums to finance its wages or timber. This is a specific demand to the Minister to have so many millions for certain purposes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It would be impossible to adhere to the £40 million limit, and probably disadvantageous to do so. Last year, I think it was, Mr. Lowe, when he gave evidence before the Public Accounts Committee on behalf of the Coal Board, mentioned that the working capital at a given moment was £44 million—that is above the £40 million—but I do not think anyone would argue that any disaster has happened because of that. If the Board came to the Minister and said, "We have to keep our internal resources for working capital, and we must have larger advances for long-term investment" that is, for schemes for long-term investment such as the Minister might approve, then he would have to make the advances.
I think that the limit proposed would have real disadvantages, and would not promote the objects which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have in mind, and I hope that they will not press it.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman preens himself on being a banker. He has many virtues. He is a champion long-distance runner—and his staying power as a speaker is even greater. We have listened to a long account by the Minister, who has been telling us of the banking functions he discharges. I do not think any hon. Gentlemen on either side of the Committee will want to turn Ministers into bankers. First of all, it is difficult to make such a transformation, and no sensible person is likely to trust his money to a politician. That being the generally accepted doctrine of the House, I think we ought to ask the Minister to reconsider his statement rejecting out of hand this Amendment which has been advanced in a most moderate and persuasive way by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts).
If the Minister has the opportunity, during the week-end, to look into the suggestion he might feel inclined to treat

it as he did the last Amendment. I think he ought to try to understand something about banking before he asks us to put confidence in him as a banker. He talked about the Coal Board keeping its accounts at the Bank of England. It is not necessary for them to keep their accounts there. They could keep them at any bank. I expected some hon. Member representing the "Co-ops" to get up and speak for the C.W.S. Until the Minister is instructed in banking he is obviously ill-equipped to give lessons, but he has been courteous to us here this evening, the night is dark and we are far from home and if he will promise to reconsider this matter I think my hon. Friends can readily withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. P. Roberts: There is one other point which I should like to put to the Minister. I hope he realises that we are not talking here of the ordinary borrowing by the Coal Board for its working capital. What we are talking about is the Coal Board being able to say, "Of the extra money we want to borrow so much is to be set aside for working capital." It will not affect the working capital of the Board at any one time unless the amount rises so high that it comes to more than £40 million. I do not know whether the Minister has got that point. That does not arise if the Board want to buy timber or anything like that, but this is where the Coal Board come to the Minister and say, "We are going to borrow an extra £100 million and so much of that will be towards working capital."
At present the Coal Board actually are lending money to the Minister. In the present accounts the Board have lent the Minister £22 million, and, therefore, I do not see why he is so frightened of this. I hope he will think over what my right hon. Friend has said, because it is a point in which I think there is a great deal of substance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to move in page 2, line 17, to leave out "twenty" and to insert "fifteen."
Subsection 4 of this Clause deals with the temporary borrowing powers of the Board as laid down under Section 27 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1947, which says:


The Board may, with the consent of the Minister, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by him, borrow temporarily by way of overdraft or otherwise such sums as they may require for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions under this Act: Provided that the aggregate of amounts outstanding in respect of sums so borrowed shall not at any time exceed ten million pounds.
In the Bill the Minister is asking that the £10 million should be increased to £20 million, which is doubling the sum. The purpose of this Amendment is to inquire in rather more detail why it is necessary to double the amount. We do not say that it is certain that £15 million will meet the Bill, but we are of opinion that rather more is being asked for than is necessary. It is much easier to raise this matter now than it was on Second Reading.
The Minister was not too clear in the explanation he gave when he raised this matter on Second Reading. He replied with great detail to a number of points outside those relating to finance, but about those on finance he was by no means altogether clear. I gather from his explanation that this is really a matter of short-term policy. Under the Act of 1946 the Coal Board must pay its way, but in some years there may be a deficit. In the first year there was a deficit of £20 million. The Minister hopes that such a deficit will not occur again, but apparently he is a little doubtful about it, which is rather the reason for my first question. It seems to be rather strange that after four years' experience of costs and operation of the industry, the Board should have difficulty in estimating what the possible loss may amount to. They control prices, and, as I have said, they have had four-and-a-half years of operating this industry.
I cannot, therefore, understand why there has to be this margin of error twice as bad as when they started. That is my first question to the Minister. In the past, I suppose, this difficulty has been got over by use of certain large sums which the Coal Board had in reserve. These were used to meet liability when it arose, but as the Minister himself has said, they may not always be able to use these funds. Then, the right hon. Gentleman said that this power will only be used with the control of the House; but how does he suggest that the House will really be able to exercise control over borrowing of this sort—borrowing,

presumably, between the Board and the banks? That is my second question.
I presume that what has actually happened is that the original estimate of the working capital required was too low, and was made, presumably on what was necessary when the industry was operated by private enterprise. That tempts me to suggest that the corollary is that, apparently, the former owners could work with less capital, and run the industry more cheaply.
The Board, quite rightly, has made certain economies; one of which has already been referred to tonight. Before nationalisation, the general custom for rail-borne coal was to allow credit to the end of the month following the date of delivery; but now the Board only allows it to the 15th of the month following delivery. If some 150 million tons of rail-borne coal are handled, that is a turnover of about £450 million sterling, and this shortening of credit must achieve an economy of something like £10 million a year. If they have been able to achieve that economy, surely it is another reason for asking why there should be increased powers for borrowing. That is my third point.
But apart from that, it does seem that this rather stop-gap method of financing the industry is not a very good one. If it could be wound up, and the industry wholly financed from working capital, as most other industries are, I think it would be better. But the Bill does not suggest that this change should be made; in fact, it is being perpetuated, and the amount of money asked for in these short-term loans is to be doubled. In moving this Amendment, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would answer these three questions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me why the margin of error has increased since the original Act was passed; he refers to the £20 million, compared with the £10 million. This money, of course, which it is empowered to borrow, namely, from the banks by overdraft or otherwise, is to finance revenue deficits. The Act enjoins the Coal Board to pay its way on average good and bad years. In other words, in some years it may make a loss. In fact, in its first year, it did make a loss of £23 million and it was owing to the purely fortuitous circumstances that it had the other internal resources we have discussed


tonight—the workmen's compensation fund, and so—that it was able to get through that period without passing this £10 million limit.
That is why really we think—it is experience which makes us think—we cannot foresee the future; we cannot expect the Board will not ever make a loss. We trust it will not, but it is conceivable it will and it is desirable that it should be empowered to meet it in this way. The hon. and gallant Member asked how can the Government exercise its control. The Minister has to give his consent to any such operation by the Board and they cannot do it until they have asked the Minister for leave to do so.
I think the real purpose of this Amendment is shown by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). He said if we had to come to the House for extra powers for temporary borrowing above the £10 million allowed in the original Act the House would know at the earliest possible moment that things had gone wrong. With great respect, I think he will know things are going wrong with the Board long before the present limit of £10 million is reached. This temporary borrowing is to meet a revenue deficit, if the Board is losing money. If the Board is losing money, that appears at once in the quarterly statement of which I have spoken tonight. Anything mat hon. Members may wish to raise and which they think is unsatisfactory can be raised on this statement. To make us come and ask for legislation if there were a deficit of more than £10 million might hamper the Board very much but it might not add to the powers of Parliament to find out what is going wrong. We should know already.
I do not believe that this power is likely to be used. I can reveal something which may not be known. To date, no single borrowing has ever taken place under these provisions for £10 million. The Minister has never given consent because it has never been asked for up to date, but it might be in the future and it might be for more than £10 million. Past experience shows this will certainly not be abused, and therefore, the Committee can safely agree to what we ask. The Opposition, I see, propose an amount of £15 million instead of £10 million, but I hope they will make it £20 million.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister has given an explanation which has impinged, I think, on the authority of Mr. Speaker because he told us now that we can ask questions on the quarterly statement of the Coal Board, which has never been the ruling of the Chair before. He would not make such a statement without Mr. Speaker's permission to do so and we are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for obtaining this great Parliamentary reform which we have long sought.
As for the Minister's statement about the authority, as far as I understand the statement—it is rather prolix and to a certain extent confused—he says that the Coal Board need this extra margin, that is, the 50 per cent. margin, and the powers to borrow another £10 million. He explained to us carefully that they have never borrowed in the past but he fears that they may borrow in the future. But he tells us that through this new Parliamentary reform to which he has just referred—rather usurping the position of the Leader of the House, not to say that of the Speaker—that we have means of discovering any losses made by the Coal Board. We know that the Board have made very heavy losses over importing American coal and having to sell it at low prices. That is a heavy loss, but how can Parliament know about that?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have already said repeatedly in the House, in answer to Questions which were accepted by the Table, that when the transactions were completed I would tell the House all about them.

Mr. Bracken: The Leader of the party to which I have the honour to belong is, I understand, attending loyally to certain sporting interests in the county so well represented as chairman of the council by the Home Secretary, but it is astonishing that the Minister should tell us that we can find out after the event—we certainly can after the horse has left the stable. But what we would like to do is to deal with these affairs in a reasonable time, and we are not allowed to do this.
The Minister says that the Coal Board never borrowed money before, but he thinks it wise that they should be able to borrow £20 million. That is twice the present borrowing power and it is not very reassuring, certainly not to a Caledonian. The Minister's explanation, like the peace of God, passeth all under-


standing. On the other hand, I know he means well; there is no doubt about that. But I feel that from the point of view of flocculence no politician has ever equalled the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Flocculence, to those educated at Harrow, means "woolly." I feel that if we cannot get any better explanation it is because he does not know anything about this. I think he realises that when my hon. and gallant Friend put down the Amendment it was not from a querulous or party point of view, but because we do not understand the necessity—

Mr. Glanville: Hon. Members over there do not understand it.

Mr. Bracken: Neither do hon. Members opposite. But it is strange that the Minister should double the amount. We are willing to take his explanation, inadequate as it is, for granted and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment because probably before we finish with the Bill the Minister will see that it is quite unnecessary to double the amount.

Colonel Clarke: I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer and when he reads his speech he will see that what he said earlier is almost exactly a rehash of what he said on Second Reading. We have had the same speech three times, but we are no further towards understanding why this sum should be doubled. My right hon. Friend has got an answer to one question and I am afraid I must abandon the other two to some later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION.)

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Pitman: The Minister has kindly given an undertaking that on Report he will introduce an Amendment, if on consideration he thinks it wise; but if we were to pass this stage without any Amendment to the Bill to report back to the House there would be no opportunity for him to carry out his undertaking. Therefore, I beg to move as a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 26, after "were" to insert "to be." It is an inoffensive verbal alteration and will enable the Minister to do what he said.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member will have to put that in writing.

Mr. Pitman: I will do that, Sir Charles.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Royle]—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

SIR WILLIAM TURNER'S HOSPITAL AT KIRKLEATHAM BILL

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. M. Philips Price.]

TIMBER HOUSES (IMPORT DUTY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to make a suggestion to the Board of Trade which, if he sees fit to accept it, will result in several hundred extra houses being erected and occupied in this country during the present year. I propose to base my arguments upon a particular case that has come under my notice, but I have reason to believe that it is by no means unique, and that the claim I have just made is rather an under-statement than an exaggeration.
On 24th February this year the Lord Mayor of Birmingham inspected, in the City of Birmingham, a block of four Swedish timber houses that had been erected by a Wolverhampton firm on the order of the City Corporation, and it appears from the reports on that occasion that great satisfaction with these houses was expressed by the Lord Mayor and by the councillors who accompanied him. From photographs in my possession, which I hope to show to the hon. Gentleman, he will be able to satisfy himself that these houses are in every way worthy of being accepted, as they are accepted by local authorities and the Ministry of Health, for general housing purposes.
The firm which erected these houses is capable of erecting them in Birmingham


and elsewhere at the rate of at least 100 a month. Some time ago they made their tender for the first 100 houses to the City Corporation, which is not the only local authority in the West Midlands interested in this possibility. These houses are subject at present to an import duty which has the result of increasing their cost by approximately 2s. per foot super. The effect of this increase is two-fold. In the first place, it prices the houses out of consideration on the Ministry of Health yardstick—or should I call it foot rule?—of cost per foot super.
In considering housing contracts submitted to it by local authorities the Ministry does not compare unit house cost with unit house cost but compares contracts on the basis of cost per foot super. Therefore, any factor which increases the cost per foot super on a particular type of house, even though that house may provide the same accommodation cheaper per unit, falls by the standard the Ministry operates. The addition of this 2s. thus prices these houses out of consideration under the Ministry of Health standards; otherwise, they would compare approximately with the contracts now coming forward calculated on the new basic prices. The Customs Duty is thereby preventing the City of Birmingham and other authorities going ahead with the construction of these houses.
Suppose, however, that economies were made, so that, even taking account of the Customs Duty, the cost could be brought down to a level the Ministry would approve. We should still be imposing on the ratepayers and the tenants the burden of that 2s., which is merely a sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer is collecting through the customs. This, it will be agreed, is not a very sensible arrangement. Why, then, cannot the import duty be suspended, or at any rate reduced to the level of the duty levied on foreign cut timber as a measure of preference against Commonwealth timber?
In correspondence I have had with the President of the Board of Trade, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the fullness with which he has given the considerations which are in his mind, he has advanced two reasons which he thought caused difficulty. The first is this. In a letter dated 3rd April he stated:

At the present time the industry"—
that is, the British joinery industry—
has the capacity to do more business both in wooden houses and in fittings for all types of houses, but they are hamstrung by the shortage of timber. I think they would have a very real grievance if, in these circumstances, they were exposed to duty-free competition from foreign suppliers.
The first argument is, therefore, that the British joinery industry requires this protection for its wooden houses. I would be the first to bow to that argument if there were any evidence that the industry could this year offer to local authorities acceptable types of timber houses. As far as I know there is no evidence of that, and unless it can be produced, there is no practical reason for protecting the British joinery industry. The suggestion I am putting to the President of the Board of Trade is strictly limited to this—that for the present building season this Customs Duty should be lifted.
The second reason he gave is this:
I am not satisfied that the removal of the import duty on prefabricated houses would in fact mean a net increase in the number of houses erected, since these houses would have to be offset against local authorities' quotas.
In that argument I believe there is no substance at all. We have been frequently told by the Minister of Local Government and Planning that he is not only willing but anxious, as soon as a local authority fulfils its quota, to give it an additional quota in the same building season. In fact, that was confirmed only yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to Oral Questions, and there can be no question that if the City of Birmingham overshoots its quota by erecting these houses it will get an addition to its allocation.
It may be, however, that the argument is to be based upon the national allocation of houses, upon the global figure for the country at large; that it is being argued that if one local authority is enabled by this means to build more houses then fewer can be erected by other local authorities. So that there will be no increase in the country at large. That argument, also, is fallacious. The global figure of houses which can be erected purports to be based upon the available supplies of materials and labour. Both as regards materials and labour the Swedish timber houses make far less call upon our resources than the traditional


houses. As regards materials that is evidently the case, since the whole casing of the house is imported and no claim is made on indigenous materials. Nor is the timber in the house offset against our timber imports. So, as regards materials, it is obvious at a glance that the calls upon our material resources are far less than those made by the comparable traditional houses.
I pass to labour, which is the other limiting factor, and probably at the present time the tighter of the two limiting factors. I have had figures prepared comparing the man-hours involved of both skilled and unskilled labour in the erection of these Swedish timber houses and the comparable traditional houses. These figures show that almost exactly half the number of man-hours are required, both on site preparation and in erection, and in the two taken together, for the Swedish houses than for the traditional houses. I am perfectly willing to supply the hon. Gentleman with detailed figures, but, in general, the ratio is practically 50 per cent.
It will therefore be evident that we can build two of these houses approximately with the materials and labour required to build one traditional house. Supposing the national quota is ever so tightly and correctly calculated, it still follows that by erecting these houses we could make an increase in the national output equal to half the number of these houses which we erect.
I claim, therefore, that these houses are a means of producing not merely alternatives to the same number of traditional houses, but would enable local authorities to achieve a net increase in the number of families that they could re-house this year and in the early months of next year. That they would be able to do without extra cost to the ratepayer or the tenant and without doing any damage to our indigenous industry if the President of the Board of Trade can see his way to lifting for the remainder of this season the import duty upon these timber houses.
This may appear to be a small matter, but I think that in reality it is one of considerable importance. Suppose that in the City of Birmingham alone this meant, to put it at its lowest, an extra 100 houses. I began by saying that this was not a unique case; this firm is not

unique in its potentialities. However, put it at no more than 100. Would not it be well worth the time of this House and the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade to go to a great deal of trouble in the adjustment of the import duty if it meant that even another hundred families in Birmingham are re-housed this year? I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will reconsider this matter and reconsider it favourably.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I should like, briefly, but strongly, to support my hon. Friend in asking the Government to take quick action in the matter of the import duty on Swedish houses. I do so particularly from the point of view of the City of Birmingham, which, as my hon. Friend has said, has already erected four of these houses, and which have given considerable satisfaction to the people living in them. Birmingham has been considering ordering 100 more, which, no doubt, would not be the limit to what would be contemplated if these are successful.
The background of the position in Birmingham can be put shortly. Like the rest of the country, Birmingham has a severe housing shortage, maybe more severe than in other parts of the country because of the great re-armament activity which is drawing more people into the city. The housing shortage is causing great hardship and dismay. About 18 months to two years ago there was an atmosphere of defeatism with regard to the solution of the housing problem in the city and with regard to making any substantial progress there. The friends of hon. Gentleman opposite who were responsible for the city administration took the view, which was also the view of the Government about the national problem, that no improvement in the rate of building could be expected.
My friends on this side gained the majority in the election and came into office. I am glad to say—and I think even hon. Members opposite will be pleased—that they succeeded in doubling the rate of house building in the City of Birmingham during last year. How has this been achieved? It has been achieved partly by traditional building, but, to a large extent, by an exceedingly energetic examination of a considerable number


of methods of non-traditional building. They made great progress in that direction, but, of course, that is not nearly enough for what we need, and we hope to make it very much better.
It is in that light we ought to look at the problem of Swedish houses, which is another method of non-traditional building. In Birmingham, we take the view that the price of this type of house is high, higher than that of the traditional house, and we are considering whether it is possible to go on with this project. If the import duty remains the price will be too much and it will not be possible to go on with the project. If the duty is taken off, it will make a great difference.
I am not in a position to say that it would be certain that the project would then proceed, because the price would still be high, particularly in relation to the price of the traditional house. But I am informed that in other parts of the country where the price of the traditional house is higher than in Birmingham, it might well be that the margin would make it a more favourable project to go in for Swedish houses. If there is an increase in imports and in production, there might be a lowering of price, in which case it would become an interesting project from the point of view of Birmingham.
I have put my case frankly and have not attempted to exaggerate. It is not a case where I can say that the instant the Government act on this matter, we can proceed, but if the Government would act on this matter, so far as our part of the country is concerned I believe there would be a net increase to the amount of houses that could be quickly built, and so far as Birmingham is concerned it would open one more practical avenue for a further effort of the kind that has been put into these methods of non-traditional building which have been so successful—an effort which would enable us to make a further contribution to the relief of the housing problem in our city.

11.20 p.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I do not think that there is any disagreement between either side of the House on the necessity of getting more and more houses. But we

have to face the fact that the amount of capital investment available to us, if we are to avoid inflation, is limited. There is also the question of labour and materials. The fact is that if we are to have more houses there will be fewer hospitals, fewer schools, and fewer factories, because it is not possible to build in one direction without hurting something in another.
As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said, the subject matter of the Adjournment has been raised before and the President of the Board of Trade said, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that he was willing to consider on its merits any application made for the abolition, on a temporary basis, of the import duty on timbered houses. He said it would be necessary, in considering such applications, to have regard to the interests of the United Kingdom joinery industry and also to assess the effects of such relaxation on our timber supplies.
As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, a firm in his constituency is interested in building timbered houses for the City of Birmingham. I think the hon. Gentleman did tell my right hon. Friend that if there was any firm prospect of a substantial order for this type of house—which was dependent on the question of import duty—he would let him know. Tonight, he has endeavoured to give some information; the information I have is that the firm has been engaged to put up four experimental houses, but as yet we do not know the cost. There has been a tender for 100 houses, and we are informed that the cost of the Swedish type would be £150 a house above that of the traditional type.

Mr. Powell: I think that the comparison with the traditional house is one with contracts or tenders dated earlier than this, and if the comparison is made with tenders now being made for some local authorities they will see that difference.

Mr. Bottomley: I know that, and investigation will show whether it is justified, but as at present advised that is the information that I have. The President of the Board of Trade gave the matter full consideration and as the hon. Gentleman has given some indication of this, may I state fully what the President


did say. He said it would be inequitable to agree to a more favourable treatment of manufactured products than of the raw materials from which they are made. I am sure hon. Gentlemen are not suggesting we should abolish preferences at present enjoyed by the Commonwealth. He also said that the joinery industry attached considerable importance to the maintenance of protective duties on manufactures of wood, more particularly because so many of their foreign competitors had a natural advantage in the matter of timber supplies.
Supplies in this country are limited, and if we are to take timbered houses from Sweden it necessarily follows that it is at the expense of the timber supplies we may get for other purposes. The more prefabricated houses made from Swedish timber the less likelihood there is of our getting timber supplies for our other needs, not least among which is that of rearmament. My right hon. Friend also said, in his reply, that the removal of the import duty on prefabricated houses would not mean an increase in the number of houses erected, because these houses would have to be offset against the local authorities' quotas.
That is right. If there is going to be a capital investment programme in which so many houses are going to be built and the City of Birmingham was to build Swedish houses instead of traditional types it would not be an additional number, as this would add to the capital investment programme.

Mr. Powell: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the capital investment programme is one of labour and materials and that if we are going to build two houses of one sort against one of another it does not mean an increase in that programme.

Mr. Bottomley: It cannot be done that way, because prefabricated houses still need essential services like sewers, roads and things of that kind, and the imported house has to be paid for by exports from this country. The whole content has to be looked at, and there we come up against finance, raw material resources and particularly labour.
I was going on to say that the point made by the hon. Member that the United Kingdom industry does not make prefabricated houses is not quite accurate. It does, in fact, make them, and would

make more if only it had the timber. It is in that sense that the Joinery Association have stated that they wish for some measure of protection, which I think is quite reasonable.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Protection for something which they, in fact, are not supplying to this country?

Mr. Bottomley: They would if they got more timber.

Mr. Powell: But not this year?

Mr. Bottomley: If timber is imported into this country in the form of the manufactured article then the possibility arises of not getting timber for the industry making prefabricated houses in this country. The two things must be taken together. If the normal supplies of timber to this country from another country are to come in the form of the manufactured article in that way harm will be done to the industry itself, because we shall not get the timber supplies that we would otherwise get. If the traditional class of building materials are available broadly for all the purposes for which they are required, they would be used within the present housing programme. There will not be an opportunity tonight to develop that point further.
There is a scarcity of timber and, that being so, it has to be used to the best possible purpose. I am told that the traditional house built by the local authority requires less than 1.5 standards of timber, but for the prefabricated houses three standards are required. To that extent it means a draw upon the limited amount of timber that is available.
I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, said that until some competition arises, in practice the import duty is raising the price of wooden houses in this country without conferring any benefit on the United Kingdom industry. I have tried to answer that point by saying that if we assume that there is no United Kingdom interest in producing prefabricated houses, the United Kingdom joinery trade would still have to be protected, because it would otherwise suffer a disability in providing the window frames, doors and other joinery work used in house building.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Could the hon. Gentleman say how much unemployment there is in the joinery industry in this country?

Mr. Bottomley: I am informed that there is under-employment at present, and if these houses were let in duty free it would worsen the position of that industry.
The imported prefabricated houses to this country not only affect the United Kingdom industry, but also the Commonwealth interests, because the Commonwealth has a free rate of entry. If this duty were removed it would still remain on the materials used and—

Mr. Powell: Are there any such houses entering this country?

Mr. Bottomley: The point is that the raw materials would still carry the duty, and it would create an unfortunate position if we let in the manufactured article free and, at the same time, there was a duty on components for these houses which come from countries other than the Commonwealth countries. I am quite sure that the hon. Member does not want to suggest that. We have to pay for imports with exports, and we consider that it is much better that our exports bring in the kind of goods which are wanted; and we are doing that by the policy being employed at the moment of getting the timber into the country in its raw state rather than in the manufactured state.
It has been said that the houses brought in would be an addition to the total number of homes erected. It has been said that the local authority quotas could be increased, but I have tried to show that that is not correct. These imported houses would have to be set against the number allocated to local authorities; they would not be additional, and the same amount of work would have to be put in on the sites, and 50 per cent. of the labour demands would still exist. Furthermore, we should have to make up in industry for the imports, and I suggest that all these reasons more than outweigh any possible advantage which there might be from the use of these prefabricated houses.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Why does the hon. Gentleman call them "prefabricated" houses? They are more permanent than the buildings called "prefabricated houses."

Mr. Bottomley: I agree that they are a manufactured product, in a more complete sense, but, nevertheless—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.